On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 4:23 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 01:20:19PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 01:44:35AM +0000, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Most of the space should be taken by preserved folios. So take its
> > > + * size, plus a page for other properties.
> > > + */
> > > + fdt = memfd_luo_create_fdt(PAGE_ALIGN(preserved_size) + PAGE_SIZE);
> > > + if (!fdt) {
> > > + err = -ENOMEM;
> > > + goto err_unpin;
> > > + }
> >
> > This doesn't seem to have any versioning scheme, it really should..
> >
> > > + err = fdt_property_placeholder(fdt, "folios", preserved_size,
> > > + (void **)&preserved_folios);
> > > + if (err) {
> > > + pr_err("Failed to reserve folios property in FDT: %s\n",
> > > + fdt_strerror(err));
> > > + err = -ENOMEM;
> > > + goto err_free_fdt;
> > > + }
> >
> > Yuk.
> >
> > This really wants some luo helper
> >
> > 'luo alloc array'
> > 'luo restore array'
> > 'luo free array'
>
> We can just add kho_{preserve,restore}_vmalloc(). I've drafted it here:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rppt/linux.git/log/?h=kho/vmalloc/v1
The patch looks okay to me, but it doesn't support holes in vmap
areas. While that is likely acceptable for vmalloc, it could be a
problem if we want to preserve memfd with holes and using vmap
preservation as a method, which would require a different approach.
Still, this would help with preserving memfd.
However, I wonder if we should add a separate preservation library on
top of the kho and not as part of kho (or at least keep them in a
separate file from core logic). This would allow us to preserve more
advanced data structures such as this and define preservation version
control, similar to Jason's store_object/restore_object proposal.
>
> Will wait for kbuild and then send proper patches.
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
