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:   Fri, 19 May 2023 11:29:45 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Cc:     Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mm: intorduce __GFP_UNMAPPED and unmapped_alloc()
Message-ID: <20230519082945.GE4967@kernel.org>
References: <20230308094106.227365-1-rppt@kernel.org>
 <20230308094106.227365-2-rppt@kernel.org>
 <ZGWdHC3Jo7tFUC59@moria.home.lan>
 <20230518152354.GD4967@kernel.org>
 <CAPhsuW541pcsMKYah=2U8mUs8is3jAiNKC8Erte=RkAUGFO9EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZGZW0v3nRShO7r+Z@moria.home.lan>
 <CAPhsuW5BbbxinaH2aO=2Wa0aSQ3pkNwvnrgJv7fG4QcPr_j7+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZGZfLHA8vuRJwa0f@moria.home.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ZGZfLHA8vuRJwa0f@moria.home.lan>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Kent,

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 01:23:56PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:00:39AM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 9:48 AM Kent Overstreet
> > <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 09:33:20AM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > > > I am working on patches based on the discussion in [1]. I am planning to
> > > > send v1 for review in a week or so.
> > >
> > > Hey Song, I was reviewing that thread too,
> > >
> > > Are you taking a different approach based on Thomas's feedback? I think
> > > he had some fair points in that thread.
> > 
> > Yes, the API is based on Thomas's suggestion, like 90% from the discussions.
> > 
> > >
> > > My own feeling is that the buddy allocator is our tool for allocating
> > > larger variable sized physically contiguous allocations, so I'd like to
> > > see something based on that - I think we could do a hybrid buddy/slab
> > > allocator approach, like we have for regular memory allocations.
> > 
> > I am planning to implement the allocator based on this (reuse
> > vmap_area logic):
> 
> Ah, you're still doing vmap_area approach.
> 
> Mike's approach looks like it'll be _much_ lighter weight and higher
> performance, to me. vmalloc is known to be slow compared to the buddy
> allocator, and with Mike's approach we're only modifying mappings once
> per 2 MB chunk.
> 
> I don't see anything in your code for sub-page sized allocations too, so
> perhaps I should keep going with my slab allocator.

Your allocator implicitly relies on vmalloc because of module_alloc ;-)

What I was thinking is that we can replace module_alloc() calls in your
allocator with something based on my unmapped_alloc(). If we make the part
that refills the cache also take care of creating the mapping in the
module address space, that should cover everything.
 
> Could you share your thoughts on your approach vs. Mike's? I'm newer to
> this area of the code than you two so maybe there's an angle I've missed
> :)
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.