Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/5] bpf_prog_pack followup

[Song Liu]

> On Jul 8, 2022, at 3:24 PM, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 07:58:44PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 8, 2022, at 8:58 AM, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 01:36:25AM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 7, 2022, at 5:53 PM, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 11:52:58PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 7, 2022, at 3:59 PM, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 03:35:41PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
>>>>>>>> This set is the second half of v4 [1].
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Changes v5 => v6:
>>>>>>>> 1. Rebase and extend CC list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why post a new iteration so soon without completing the discussion we
>>>>>>> had? It seems like we were at least going somewhere. If it's just
>>>>>>> to include mm as I requested, sure, that's fine, but this does not
>>>>>>> provide context as to what we last were talking about.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sorry for sending v6 too soon. The primary reason was to extend the CC
>>>>>> list and add it back to patchwork (v5 somehow got archived). 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also, I think vmalloc_exec_ work would be a separate project, while this 
>>>>>> set is the followup work of bpf_prog_pack. Does this make sense? 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Btw, vmalloc_exec_ work could be a good topic for LPC. It will be much
>>>>>> more efficient to discuss this in person. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> What we need is input from mm / arch folks. What is not done here is
>>>>> what that stuff we're talking about is and so mm folks can't guess. My
>>>>> preference is to address that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't think in person discussion is needed if the only folks
>>>>> discussing this topic so far is just you and me.
>>>> 
>>>> How about we start a thread with mm / arch folks for the vmalloc_exec_*
>>>> topic? I will summarize previous discussions and include pointers to 
>>>> these discussions. If necessary, we can continue the discussion at LPC.
>>> 
>>> This sounds like a nice thread to use as this is why we are talking
>>> about that topic.
>>> 
>>>> OTOH, I guess the outcome of that discussion should not change this set? 
>>> 
>>> If the above is done right then actually I think it would show similar
>>> considerations for a respective free for module_alloc_huge().
>>> 
>>>> If we have concern about module_alloc_huge(), maybe we can have bpf code 
>>>> call vmalloc directly (until we have vmalloc_exec_)? 
>>> 
>>> You'd need to then still open code in a similar way the same things
>>> which we are trying to reach consensus on.
>> 
>>>> What do you think about this plan?
>>> 
>>> I think we should strive to not be lazy and sloppy, and prevent growth
>>> of sloppy code. So long as we do that I think this is all reasoanble.
>> 
>> Let me try to understand your concerns here. Say if we want module code
>> to be a temporary home for module_alloc_huge before we move it to mm
>> code. Would you think it is ready to ship if we:
> 
> Please CC Christoph and linux-modules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on future patches
> and dicussions aroudn this, and all others now CC'd.

Sometimes, vger drops my patch because the CC list is too long. That's 
the reason I often trim the CC list. I will try to keep folks in this
thread CC'ed. 

> 
>> 1) Rename module_alloc_huge as module_alloc_text_huge();
> 
> module_alloc_text_huge() is too long, but I've suggested names before
> which are short and generic, and also suggested that if modules are
> not the only users this needs to go outside of modules and so
> vmalloc_text_huge() or whatever.
> 
> To do this right it begs the question why we don't do that for the
> existing module_alloc(), as the users of this code is well outside of
> modules now. Last time a similar generic name was used all the special
> arch stuff was left to be done by the module code still, but still
> non-modules were still using that allocator. From my perspective the
> right thing to do is to deal with all the arch stuff as well in the
> generic handler, and have the module code *and* the other users which
> use module_alloc() to use that new caller as well.

The key difference between module_alloc() and the new API is that the 
API will return RO+X memory, and the user need text-poke like API to
modify this buffer. Archs that do not support text-poke will not be
able to use the new API. Does this sound like a reasonable design?

> 
>> 2) Add module_free_text_huge();
> 
> Right, we have special handling for how we free this special code for regular
> module_alloc() and so similar considerations would be needed here for
> the huge stuff.
> 
>> 3) Move set_memory_* and fill_ill_insn logic into module_alloc_text_huge()
>> and module_free_text_huge(). 
> 
> Yes, that's a bit hairy now, and so a saner and consistent way to do
> this would be best.

Thanks for these information. I will try to go this direction. 

> 
>> Are these on the right direction? Did I miss anything important?
> 
> I've also hinted before that another way to help here is to have draw
> up a simple lib/test_vmalloc_text.c or something like that which would
> enable a selftest to ensure correctness of this code on different archs
> and maybe even let you do performance analysis using perf [0]. You have
> good reasons to move to the huge allocator and the performance metrics
> are an abstract load, however perf measurements can also give you real
> raw data which you can reproduce and enable others to do similar
> comparisons later.
> 
> The last thing I'd ask is just ensure you Cc folks who have already been in
> these discussions.
> 
> [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Yog+d+oR5TtPp2cs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Let me see how we can test it. 

Thanks,
Song