Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:07:17 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc:     Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
        "linux-modules@vger.kernel.org" <linux-modules@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "songliubraving@fb.com" <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] module: replace module_layout with module_memory
Message-ID: <Y8gLJYA3ibA8De58@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230106220959.3398792-1-song@kernel.org>
 <83941b74-7585-235b-ee54-3b127ca70d9e@csgroup.eu>
 <CAPhsuW6S8qJWFzSLpVf_4ZpyM0Cxty=-pS2_K=tgF52s95Zhag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPhsuW7+BG9wYaoD6EYH-jnWqX30JdgNr5_733sO-++SzR5v3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <154ed99c-5877-35f6-5e7d-9d7abada7d33@csgroup.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <154ed99c-5877-35f6-5e7d-9d7abada7d33@csgroup.eu>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 06:31:41AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 09/01/2023 ? 21:51, Song Liu a ?crit?:

> > Do you mean one tree will cause addr_[min|max] to be inaccurate?
> > 
> 
> Yes at least. On powerpc you will have module text below kernel, 
> somewhere between 0xb0000000 and 0xcfffffff, and you will have module 
> data in vmalloc area, somewhere between 0xf0000000 and 0xffffffff.
> 
> If you have only one tree, any address between 0xc0000000 and 0xefffffff 
> will trigger a tree search.

The current min/max thing is tied to the tree because of easy update on
remove, but module-insert/remove is not a performance critical path.

So I think it should be possible to have {min,max}[TYPES] pairs.  Either
brute force the removal -- using a linear scan of the mod->list to find
the new bounds on removal.

Or overengineer the whole thing and use an augmented tree to keep that
many heaps in sync during the update -- but this seems total overkill.

The only consideration is testing that many ranges in
__module_address(), this is already 2 cachelines worth of range-checks
-- which seems a little excessive.

(also, I note that module_addr_{min,max} are unused these days)