Re: [PATCH 1/1] RFC: add pidfd_send_signal flag to reclaim mm while killing a process

From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
	Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-team <kernel-team@android.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] RFC: add pidfd_send_signal flag to reclaim mm while killing a process
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 20:32:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201118193233.GV12284@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpGC1Kv2rC7oq-TT2dX1soy5J_R+y6DU8xEzVuJgOqHKAw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed 18-11-20 11:22:21, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 13-11-20 18:16:32, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > [...]
> > > It's all sounding a bit painful (but not *too* painful).  But to
> > > reiterate, I do think that adding the ability for a process to shoot
> > > down a large amount of another process's memory is a lot more generally
> > > useful than tying it to SIGKILL, agree?
> >
> > I am not sure TBH. Is there any reasonable usecase where uncoordinated
> > memory tear down is OK and a target process which is able to see the
> > unmapped memory?
> 
> I think uncoordinated memory tear down is a special case which makes
> sense only when the target process is being killed (and we can enforce
> that by allowing MADV_DONTNEED to be used only if the target process
> has pending SIGKILL).

That would be safe but then I am wondering whether it makes sense to
implement as a madvise call. It is quite strange to expect somebody call
a syscall on a killed process. But this is more a detail. I am not a
great fan of a more generic MADV_DONTNEED on a remote process. This is
just too dangerous IMHO.

> However, the ability to apply other flavors of
> process_madvise() to large memory areas spanning multiple VMAs can be
> useful in more cases.

Yes I do agree with that. The error reporting would be more tricky but
I am not really sure that the exact reporting is really necessary for
advice like interface.

> For example in Android we will use
> process_madvise(MADV_PAGEOUT) to "shrink" an inactive background
> process.

That makes sense to me.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs