From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D769EC33CB1 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 15:58:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D1B2064C for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 15:58:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="A++MSgED" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729096AbgAQP6l (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:58:41 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com ([209.85.208.194]:38811 "EHLO mail-lj1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728739AbgAQP6k (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:58:40 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id w1so26993776ljh.5 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 07:58:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=y+sOBVwPXHpl/jOGredPdQ/eMOPx1R53v2YKaybpo74=; b=A++MSgEDqeaqay+NQuCUGyeIN2kG3UsGiJA8e/G48HxQP8Bai+mCDaVLzeYStNnnDm OyvxPnQSMyas2dvhw+Ev+6t/pEUZAXksiKLHl+1AfZmB/wgG7IV+a0lbL4wum4G6josY AO6GhNHfbnpj4l3ztmzAa6Rk91MIiFzabf08PaVz/+GXjOHNdQ2EjEUOtxuJRRED7yjI 9aW6ceb4+In7CtnXksxhGhzmTu50yp71ijp3ckj5puwmhwt5XYU8PEJmdjf0AB7UaZ2V yFMfdhKaeZQBSkydOifCuhn2wGgnSlIM20Md1n144gVX9DwAYQDUtbf8a7Oxgq5qbq57 oMhg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=y+sOBVwPXHpl/jOGredPdQ/eMOPx1R53v2YKaybpo74=; b=X9LUkVYDKlFbVZPuSRGoRdxI1F7uqdXodRWJX30zYQkU6+tmqxCaM28pHFgCiN6CwF KOujSn3ZMqc47d5vH1EmVRZm/zOBm9gxYys4NwM5AAYXEydG1eoNrc9GjMnptehK9oZE 1UqZZzFzz5c0XD+g0Wgav+RA4mjvv/i8PAzG0eV3XXfnJd5X8/yc/9dRnAEAYDsYdCEx wM+0vU18UCjcgTmw4RtrUP8bMBwl3MfU3Wi9vtKrcJysZkZ2cC0Dv+93E31CePDcXAtT tovWgboaLWYYlYNXoBh37Pg3+DEFOnJiPqJ4vkgiOJzA6cFr/pKB5GNe/+jn7cpF+b2q tBZA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVbzYlIZMD8eDPdbxJr16A1xvcYksD23eYJalp15iVcd5EhTPBu L3yG6eaWKvyBgPqc3aKFJwXM2A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxrmQaVRsNtHHNzyFR0xx1ZpXxJ6+StbGbRoizxb9hy6Tpqd1hlRsR9BMFheoCQmtN8dCj4Uw== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9a04:: with SMTP id o4mr6084808lji.214.1579276718652; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 07:58:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from box.localdomain ([86.57.175.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q186sm12694326ljq.14.2020.01.17.07.58.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 07:58:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by box.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3729B100CFF; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 18:58:37 +0300 (+03) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 18:58:37 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Michal Hocko Cc: Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-mm , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, oleksandr@redhat.com, Suren Baghdasaryan , Tim Murray , Daniel Colascione , Sandeep Patil , Sonny Rao , Brian Geffon , Johannes Weiner , Shakeel Butt , John Dias , ktkhai@virtuozzo.com, christian.brauner@ubuntu.com, sjpark@amazon.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: introduce external memory hinting API Message-ID: <20200117155837.bowyjpndfiym6cgs@box> References: <20200116235953.163318-1-minchan@kernel.org> <20200116235953.163318-3-minchan@kernel.org> <20200117115225.GV19428@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200117115225.GV19428@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:52:25PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 16-01-20 15:59:50, Minchan Kim wrote: > > There is usecase that System Management Software(SMS) want to give > > a memory hint like MADV_[COLD|PAGEEOUT] to other processes and > > in the case of Android, it is the ActivityManagerService. > > > > It's similar in spirit to madvise(MADV_WONTNEED), but the information > > required to make the reclaim decision is not known to the app. Instead, > > it is known to the centralized userspace daemon(ActivityManagerService), > > and that daemon must be able to initiate reclaim on its own without > > any app involvement. > > > > To solve the issue, this patch introduces new syscall process_madvise(2). > > It uses pidfd of an external processs to give the hint. > > > > int process_madvise(int pidfd, void *addr, size_t length, int advise, > > unsigned long flag); > > > > Since it could affect other process's address range, only privileged > > process(CAP_SYS_PTRACE) or something else(e.g., being the same UID) > > gives it the right to ptrace the process could use it successfully. > > The flag argument is reserved for future use if we need to extend the > > API. > > > > I think supporting all hints madvise has/will supported/support to > > process_madvise is rather risky. Because we are not sure all hints make > > sense from external process and implementation for the hint may rely on > > the caller being in the current context so it could be error-prone. > > Thus, I just limited hints as MADV_[COLD|PAGEOUT] in this patch. > > > > If someone want to add other hints, we could hear hear the usecase and > > review it for each hint. It's more safe for maintainace rather than > > introducing a buggy syscall but hard to fix it later. > > I have brought this up when we discussed this in the past but there is > no reflection on that here so let me bring that up again. > > I believe that the interface has an inherent problem that it is racy. > The external entity needs to know the address space layout of the target > process to do anyhing useful on it. The address space is however under > the full control of the target process though and the external entity > has no means to find out that the layout has changed. So > time-to-check-time-to-act is an inherent problem. > > This is a serious design flaw and it should be explained why it doesn't > matter or how to use the interface properly to prevent that problem. I agree, it looks flawed. Also I don't see what System Management Software can generically do on sub-process level. I mean how can it decide which part of address space is less important than other. I see how a manager can indicate that this process (or a group of processes) is less important than other, but on per-addres-range basis? -- Kirill A. Shutemov From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: introduce external memory hinting API Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 18:58:37 +0300 Message-ID: <20200117155837.bowyjpndfiym6cgs@box> References: <20200116235953.163318-1-minchan@kernel.org> <20200116235953.163318-3-minchan@kernel.org> <20200117115225.GV19428@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200117115225.GV19428-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Michal Hocko Cc: Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-mm , linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, oleksandr-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Suren Baghdasaryan , Tim Murray , Daniel Colascione , Sandeep Patil , Sonny Rao , Brian Geffon , Johannes Weiner , Shakeel Butt , John Dias , ktkhai-5HdwGun5lf+gSpxsJD1C4w@public.gmane.org, christian.brauner-GeWIH/nMZzLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, sjpark-ebkRAfMGSJGzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:52:25PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 16-01-20 15:59:50, Minchan Kim wrote: > > There is usecase that System Management Software(SMS) want to give > > a memory hint like MADV_[COLD|PAGEEOUT] to other processes and > > in the case of Android, it is the ActivityManagerService. > > > > It's similar in spirit to madvise(MADV_WONTNEED), but the information > > required to make the reclaim decision is not known to the app. Instead, > > it is known to the centralized userspace daemon(ActivityManagerService), > > and that daemon must be able to initiate reclaim on its own without > > any app involvement. > > > > To solve the issue, this patch introduces new syscall process_madvise(2). > > It uses pidfd of an external processs to give the hint. > > > > int process_madvise(int pidfd, void *addr, size_t length, int advise, > > unsigned long flag); > > > > Since it could affect other process's address range, only privileged > > process(CAP_SYS_PTRACE) or something else(e.g., being the same UID) > > gives it the right to ptrace the process could use it successfully. > > The flag argument is reserved for future use if we need to extend the > > API. > > > > I think supporting all hints madvise has/will supported/support to > > process_madvise is rather risky. Because we are not sure all hints make > > sense from external process and implementation for the hint may rely on > > the caller being in the current context so it could be error-prone. > > Thus, I just limited hints as MADV_[COLD|PAGEOUT] in this patch. > > > > If someone want to add other hints, we could hear hear the usecase and > > review it for each hint. It's more safe for maintainace rather than > > introducing a buggy syscall but hard to fix it later. > > I have brought this up when we discussed this in the past but there is > no reflection on that here so let me bring that up again. > > I believe that the interface has an inherent problem that it is racy. > The external entity needs to know the address space layout of the target > process to do anyhing useful on it. The address space is however under > the full control of the target process though and the external entity > has no means to find out that the layout has changed. So > time-to-check-time-to-act is an inherent problem. > > This is a serious design flaw and it should be explained why it doesn't > matter or how to use the interface properly to prevent that problem. I agree, it looks flawed. Also I don't see what System Management Software can generically do on sub-process level. I mean how can it decide which part of address space is less important than other. I see how a manager can indicate that this process (or a group of processes) is less important than other, but on per-addres-range basis? -- Kirill A. Shutemov