Re: [RFC 7/7] mm: madvise support MADV_ANONYMOUS_FILTER and MADV_FILE_FILTER

From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@google.com>,
	Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 7/7] mm: madvise support MADV_ANONYMOUS_FILTER and MADV_FILE_FILTER
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 12:41:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190528104117.GW1658@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190528103256.GA9199@google.com>

On Tue 28-05-19 19:32:56, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:08:21AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 28-05-19 17:49:27, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 01:31:13AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:14 AM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > if we went with the per vma fd approach then you would get this
> > > > > > feature automatically because map_files would refer to file backed
> > > > > > mappings while map_anon could refer only to anonymous mappings.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason to add such filter option is to avoid the parsing overhead
> > > > > so map_anon wouldn't be helpful.
> > > > 
> > > > Without chiming on whether the filter option is a good idea, I'd like
> > > > to suggest that providing an efficient binary interfaces for pulling
> > > > memory map information out of processes.  Some single-system-call
> > > > method for retrieving a binary snapshot of a process's address space
> > > > complete with attributes (selectable, like statx?) for each VMA would
> > > > reduce complexity and increase performance in a variety of areas,
> > > > e.g., Android memory map debugging commands.
> > > 
> > > I agree it's the best we can get *generally*.
> > > Michal, any opinion?
> > 
> > I am not really sure this is directly related. I think the primary
> > question that we have to sort out first is whether we want to have
> > the remote madvise call process or vma fd based. This is an important
> > distinction wrt. usability. I have only seen pid vs. pidfd discussions
> > so far unfortunately.
> 
> With current usecase, it's per-process API with distinguishable anon/file
> but thought it could be easily extended later for each address range
> operation as userspace getting smarter with more information.

Never design user API based on a single usecase, please. The "easily
extended" part is by far not clear to me TBH. As I've already mentioned
several times, the synchronization model has to be thought through
carefuly before a remote process address range operation can be
implemented.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs