Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] arm64: Kconfig: Update ARCH_EXYNOS select configs
From: Olof Johansson <hidden>
Date: 2021-10-01 17:16:01
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-clk, linux-rtc, linux-samsung-soc, lkml
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 9:51 AM Will McVicker [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 9:00 AM Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:59 AM Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Hi Olof, On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 7:36 AM Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
A much more valuable approach would be to work towards being able to free up memory by un-probed drivers at the end of boot. That would possibly benefit all platforms on all architectures.We used to have such a functionality in arch/ppc (not arch/powerpc!), where code/data could be tagged __prep, __chrp, or __pmac, to put it in a special section, and to be freed with initdata when unused. It was removed in v2.6.15[1], as the savings weren't worth the hassle. In a more fragmented space like arm the memory lost due to alignment of the sections would be even more substantial.Yeah, the balance between per-platform code size and overall kernel code size shifted over time to a point where it wasn't as meaningful on ppc.quoted
Another problem is to know when is the end of the boot, especially with deferred probing.Most of this code either has a module_init() or an initcall that actually registers the drivers and/or probes for the platform and does the work. This means you can have a late equivalent hook/initcall that determines whether this path ended up being probed/used. If it wasn't, you can then unregister and flag the corresponding memory to be freed at the end, and would take out the heuristics and guessing on needing to do it automatically from the code path that's doing said freeing. -OlofFirst off, I appreciate the constructive conversations and I understand the ask here. So I'd like to close the "we don't want this" and "this isn't possible" conversation. We have already proven downstream that it is in fact possible to modularize these drivers on other SoCs (mentioned earlier if you missed it) and I'd like to direct the conversation towards verifying/testing here instead of negatively arguing about how SoC vendors aren't upstreaming their drivers. I think everyone understands that, but unfortunately I have no control over that even though I would love everyone to work upstream directly. I am fine with forcing these drivers to always be enabled in some form upstream even though it doesn't really make much sense for a generic kernel that will run on Qualcomm, Exynos, Mediatek, (you name it) SoC devices. I thought about how to do this yesterday and wasn't able to come up with a proper solution that didn't always force this driver to be a module when CONFIG_MODULES is enabled.
This line of reasoning: "I couldn't think of a better option" made us merge a userspace ABI some time ago that within a few months was replaced with a better solution. In that case it was the kernel headers bundling with a build (extending the vmlinux size by a lot), that seemed to have no concerns about binary growth. Not all that far after that went in, the BPF folks came up with a solid solution for CO-RE by introducing BTF, etc. So, the argument "I can't think of a better solution" is a local maxima that we shouldn't settle for if there's a likely better global maxima available with a bit more time/effort. If we say "this problem is worth solving but this doesn't seem to be the solution we want to go for" we might actually be better off long-term. -Olof