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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <Y8gLJYA3ibA8De58@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <Y8gLJYA3ibA8De58@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:52:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPhsuW6AR9CorYPL88-92_VBn-7uZoXj4SfWXn5N_bRC_SXSKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] module: replace module_layout with module_memory
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        "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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 7:07 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote=
:
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 06:31:41AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > Le 09/01/2023 =C4=85 21:51, Song Liu a =C3=A9crit :
>
> > > 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 0xeffffff=
f
> > 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.

I think keeping an array of min/max pairs is an overkill.
w/o CONFIG_ARCH_WANTS_MODULES_DATA_IN_VMALLOC, all the
types will be allocated in the same range (MODULES_VADDR, MODULES_END),
so one min/max pair should be enough.
w/ CONFIG_ARCH_WANTS_MODULES_DATA_IN_VMALLOC, there
is a big gap between text allocation and data allocation. I think a second
min/max pair will be useful here.

>
> 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.

Currently, min/max are updated on module load, but not on module unload.
I guess we won't really need __module_address() to be that fast.

If there are no objections or suggestions. I will update the patches with a
second min/max pair with CONFIG_ARCH_WANTS_MODULES_DATA_IN_VMALLOC.

Thanks,
Song

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