Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mm: intorduce __GFP_UNMAPPED and unmapped_alloc()

[Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>]

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.