Re: [PATCH v2] module: replace module_layout with module_memory

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 01:00:43PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> Guenter Roeck,
> 
> Any chance you can give this branch a good spin on your multi-arch setup
> to see what may below up?
> 
I assume I shoud test v3 ?

Guenter

> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=modules-testing
> 
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:01:40PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> > Hi Luis,
> > 
> > Thanks for your kind review!
> > 
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:06 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > [...]
> > > >
> > > >         MOD_MEM_TYPE_TEXT,
> > > >         MOD_MEM_TYPE_DATA,
> > > >         MOD_MEM_TYPE_RODATA,
> > > >         MOD_MEM_TYPE_RO_AFTER_INIT,
> > > >         MOD_MEM_TYPE_INIT_TEXT,
> > > >         MOD_MEM_TYPE_INIT_DATA,
> > > >         MOD_MEM_TYPE_INIT_RODATA,
> > > >
> > > > and allocating them separately.
> > >
> > > First thanks for doing this work!
> > >
> > > This seems to not acknolwedge the original goal of the first module_layout and
> > > the latched rb-tree use, and that was was for speeding up __module_address()
> > > since it *can* even be triggered on NMIs. I say this because the first question
> > > that comes to me is the impact to performance on __module_address() I can't
> > > see that changing much here, but mention it as it similar consideration
> > > should be made in case future changes modify this path.
> > 
> > To make sure I understand this correctly. Do you mean we need something like
> > the following in the commit log?
> > 
> > """
> > This adds slightly more entries to mod_tree (from up to 3 entries per module, to
> > up to 7 entries per module). However, this at most adds a small constant
> > overhead to __module_address(), which is expected to be fast.
> > """
> 
> Yes I think this is very useful information for the reviewier.
> 
> > > Microbenching something so trivial as __module_address() may not be as useful
> > > for an idle system, at the very least being able to compare before and after
> > > even on idle may be useful *if* you eventually do some more radical changes
> > > here. Modules-related kernel/kallsyms_selftest.c did that for kallsyms_lookup_name()
> > > and friend just recently for a minor performance enhancement.
> > 
> > kernel/kallsyms_selftest.c is new to me. I will give it a try.
> 
> It was just merged, be sure to have da35048f2600 ("kallsyms: Fix
> scheduling with interrupts disabled in self-test").
> 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
> > > > Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > This is the preparation work for the type aware module_alloc() discussed
> > > > in [1]. While this work is not covered much in the discussion, it is a
> > > > critical step of the effort.
> > > >
> > > > As this part grows pretty big (~1000 lines, + and -), I would like get
> > > > some feedback on it, so that I know it is on the right track.
> > > >
> > > > Please share your comments. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Test coverage: Tested on x86_64.
> > >
> > > I will likely merge this onto modules-next soon, not because I think it is
> > > ready, but just because I think it *is* mostly ready and the next thing
> > > we need is exposure and testing. rc5 is pretty late to consider this
> > > for v6.3 and so hopefully for this cycle we can at least settle on
> > > something which will sit in linux-next since the respective linux-next
> > > after v6.3-rc1 is released.
> > 
> > Yes, this definitely needs more tests. Given different archs use
> > module_layout in all sorts of ways. I will be very surprised if I updated
> > all them correctly (though I tried hard to).
> 
> OK so let's be patient with testing. Getting help from Guenter here
> can probably speed up finding issues.
> 
> > > > Build tested by kernel test bot in [2]. The only regression in [2] was a
> > > > typo in parisc, which is also fixed.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20221107223921.3451913-1-song@kernel.org/T/#u
> > >
> > > You still never addressed my performance suggestions so don't be
> > > surprised if I insist later. Yes you can use existing performance
> > > benchmarks, specially now with modules as a hard requirement, to
> > > show gains. So I'd like to clarify that if I'm reviewing late it is
> > > because:
> > >
> > > a) my modules patch review queue has been high as of late
> > > b) you seem to not have taken these performance suggestions into consideration
> > >    before and so I tend to put it at my end of my queue for review.
> > 
> > I think it will be a lot easier to run performance tests with the
> > module support. Let's see what we can do when we get to the
> > performance test part.
> 
> Fantastic, clearly I'm interested in being able to reproduce so I will
> email you offline about some techniques I've used to reproduce some
> things easily for testing things with modules.
> 
>   Luis