Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-150602-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:52:39 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Bjorn Topel <bjorn@kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>,
	Donald Dutile <ddutile@redhat.com>,
	Eric Chanudet <echanude@redhat.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>,
	Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] mm: introduce execmem_alloc() and execmem_free()
Message-ID: <ZiFd567L4Zzm2okO@kernel.org>
References: <20240411160051.2093261-1-rppt@kernel.org>
 <20240411160051.2093261-6-rppt@kernel.org>
 <20240415075241.GF40213@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <Zh1lnIdgFeM1o8S5@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
 <Zh4nJp8rv1qRBs8m@kernel.org>
 <CAPhsuW6Pbg2k_Gu4dsBx+H8H5XCHvNdtEZJBPiG_eT0qqr9D1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZiE91CJcNw7gBj9g@kernel.org>
 <CAPhsuW4au6v8k8Ab7Ff6Yj64rGvZ7wkz=Xrgh8ZZtLyscpChqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAPhsuW4au6v8k8Ab7Ff6Yj64rGvZ7wkz=Xrgh8ZZtLyscpChqQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 09:13:27AM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 8:37 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm looking at execmem_types more as definition of the consumers, maybe I
> > > > should have named the enum execmem_consumer at the first place.
> > >
> > > I think looking at execmem_type from consumers' point of view adds
> > > unnecessary complexity. IIUC, for most (if not all) archs, ftrace, kprobe,
> > > and bpf (and maybe also module text) all have the same requirements.
> > > Did I miss something?
> >
> > It's enough to have one architecture with different constrains for kprobes
> > and bpf to warrant a type for each.
> 
> AFAICT, some of these constraints can be changed without too much work.

But why?
I honestly don't understand what are you trying to optimize here. A few
lines of initialization in execmem_info?
What is the advantage in forcing architectures to have imposed limits on
kprobes or bpf allocations?

> > Where do you see unnecessary complexity?
> >
> > > IOW, we have
> > >
> > > enum execmem_type {
> > >         EXECMEM_DEFAULT,
> > >         EXECMEM_TEXT,
> > >         EXECMEM_KPROBES = EXECMEM_TEXT,
> > >         EXECMEM_FTRACE = EXECMEM_TEXT,
> > >         EXECMEM_BPF = EXECMEM_TEXT,      /* we may end up without
> > > _KPROBE, _FTRACE, _BPF */
> > >         EXECMEM_DATA,  /* rw */
> > >         EXECMEM_RO_DATA,
> > >         EXECMEM_RO_AFTER_INIT,
> > >         EXECMEM_TYPE_MAX,
> > > };
> > >
> > > Does this make sense?
> >
> > How do you suggest to deal with e.g. riscv that has separate address spaces
> > for modules, kprobes and bpf?
> 
> IIUC, modules and bpf use the same address space on riscv

Not exactly, bpf is a subset of modules on riscv.

> while kprobes use vmalloc address.

The whole point of using the entire vmalloc for kprobes is to avoid
pollution of limited modules space.
 
> Thanks,
> Song

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.