From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
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 05:18:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKOZuesnXGAsQgkB45n=jqwDRQ4_aoPiydmZxfxPmzO2p=cTow@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190528115609.GA1658@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:56 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue 28-05-19 04:42:47, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:28 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue 28-05-19 20:12:08, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:41:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you that we shouldn't design API on single usecase but what
> > > > you are concerning is actually not our usecase because we are resilient
> > > > with the race since MADV_COLD|PAGEOUT is not destruptive.
> > > > Actually, many hints are already racy in that the upcoming pattern would
> > > > be different with the behavior you thought at the moment.
> > >
> > > How come they are racy wrt address ranges? You would have to be in
> > > multithreaded environment and then the onus of synchronization is on
> > > threads. That model is quite clear. But we are talking about separate
> > > processes and some of them might be even not aware of an external entity
> > > tweaking their address space.
> >
> > I don't think the difference between a thread and a process matters in
> > this context. Threads race on address space operations all the time
> > --- in the sense that multiple threads modify a process's address
> > space without synchronization.
>
> I would disagree. They do have in-kernel synchronization as long as they
> do not use MAP_FIXED. If they do want to use MAP_FIXED then they better
> synchronize or the result is undefined.
Right. It's because the kernel hands off different regions to
different non-MAP_FIXED mmap callers that it's pretty easy for threads
to mind their own business, but they're all still using the same
address space.
> > From a synchronization point
> > of view, it doesn't really matter whether it's a thread within the
> > target process or a thread outside the target process that does the
> > address space manipulation. What's new is the inspection of the
> > address space before performing an operation.
>
> The fundamental difference is that if you want to achieve the same
> inside the process then your application is inherenly aware of the
> operation and use whatever synchronization is needed to achieve a
> consistency. As soon as you allow the same from outside you either
> have to have an aware target application as well or you need a mechanism
> to find out that your decision has been invalidated by a later
> unsynchronized action.
I thought of this objection immediately after I hit send. :-)
I still don't think the intra- vs inter-process difference matters.
It's true that threads can synchronize with each other, but different
processes can synchronize with each other too. I mean, you *could* use
sem_open(3) for your heap lock and open the semaphore from two
different processes. That's silly, but it'd work.
The important requirement, I think, is that we need to support
managing "memory-naive" uncooperative tasks (perhaps legacy ones
written before cross-process memory management even became possible),
and I think that the cooperative-vs-uncooperative distinction matters
a lot more than the tgid of the thread doing the memory manipulation.
(Although in our case, we really do need a separate tgid. :-))
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-28 12:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20190520035254.57579-1-minchan@kernel.org>
[not found] ` <20190520035254.57579-2-minchan@kernel.org>
2019-05-20 8:16 ` [RFC 1/7] mm: introduce MADV_COOL Michal Hocko
2019-05-20 8:19 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-20 15:08 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-05-20 22:55 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-20 22:54 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-21 6:04 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-21 9:11 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-21 10:05 ` Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <20190520035254.57579-4-minchan@kernel.org>
2019-05-20 8:27 ` [RFC 3/7] mm: introduce MADV_COLD Michal Hocko
2019-05-20 23:00 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-21 6:08 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-21 9:13 ` Minchan Kim
[not found] ` <20190520035254.57579-6-minchan@kernel.org>
2019-05-20 9:18 ` [RFC 5/7] mm: introduce external memory hinting API Michal Hocko
2019-05-21 2:41 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-21 6:17 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-21 10:32 ` Minchan Kim
[not found] ` <20190520035254.57579-7-minchan@kernel.org>
2019-05-20 9:22 ` [RFC 6/7] mm: extend process_madvise syscall to support vector arrary Michal Hocko
2019-05-21 2:48 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-21 6:24 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-21 10:26 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-21 10:37 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-27 7:49 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-29 10:08 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-05-29 10:33 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-30 2:17 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-30 6:57 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-30 8:02 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-30 16:19 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-05-30 18:47 ` Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <20190520035254.57579-8-minchan@kernel.org>
2019-05-20 9:28 ` [RFC 7/7] mm: madvise support MADV_ANONYMOUS_FILTER and MADV_FILE_FILTER Michal Hocko
2019-05-21 2:55 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-21 6:26 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-27 7:58 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-27 12:44 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-28 3:26 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-28 6:29 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-28 8:13 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-28 8:31 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-05-28 8:49 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-28 9:08 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-28 9:39 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-05-28 10:33 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-28 11:21 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-05-28 11:49 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-28 12:11 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-05-28 12:32 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-28 10:32 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-28 10:41 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-28 11:12 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-28 11:28 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-28 11:42 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-05-28 11:56 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-28 12:18 ` Daniel Colascione [this message]
2019-05-28 12:38 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-28 12:10 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-28 11:44 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-28 11:51 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-05-28 12:06 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-28 12:22 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-28 11:28 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-05-21 15:33 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-05-22 1:50 ` Minchan Kim
2019-05-20 9:28 ` [RFC 0/7] introduce memory hinting API for external process Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <20190520164605.GA11665@cmpxchg.org>
[not found] ` <20190521043950.GJ10039@google.com>
2019-05-21 6:32 ` Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <20190521014452.GA6738@bombadil.infradead.org>
2019-05-21 6:34 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-21 12:53 ` Shakeel Butt
[not found] ` <dbe801f0-4bbe-5f6e-9053-4b7deb38e235@arm.com>
[not found] ` <CAEe=Sxka3Q3vX+7aWUJGKicM+a9Px0rrusyL+5bB1w4ywF6N4Q@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <1754d0ef-6756-d88b-f728-17b1fe5d5b07@arm.com>
2019-05-21 12:56 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-05-22 4:23 ` Brian Geffon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAKOZuesnXGAsQgkB45n=jqwDRQ4_aoPiydmZxfxPmzO2p=cTow@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=dancol@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bgeffon@google.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=sonnyrao@google.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=timmurray@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).