Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: introduce external memory hinting API

[Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 06:58:37PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> 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?

For example, memory ranges shared by several processes or critical for the
latency, we could avoid those ranges to be cold/pageout to prevent
unncecessary CPU burning/paging.

I also think people don't want to give an KSM hint to non-mergeable area.