From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>, Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>
Cc: Joel Savitz <jsavitz@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
Sandeep Patil <sspatil@android.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fs/proc: add VmTaskSize field to /proc/$$/status
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 13:32:22 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k1ezugqh.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190508063716.GA3096@yury-thinkpad>
Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 08:54:31AM -0400, Rafael Aquini wrote:
>> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 11:53:43AM -0400, Joel Savitz wrote:
>> > There is currently no easy and architecture-independent way to find the
>> > lowest unusable virtual address available to a process without
>> > brute-force calculation. This patch allows a user to easily retrieve
>> > this value via /proc/<pid>/status.
>> >
>> > Using this patch, any program that previously needed to waste cpu cycles
>> > recalculating a non-sensitive process-dependent value already known to
>> > the kernel can now be optimized to use this mechanism.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Joel Savitz <jsavitz@redhat.com>
>> > ---
>> > Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt | 2 ++
>> > fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 2 ++
>> > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
>> > index 66cad5c86171..1c6a912e3975 100644
>> > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
>> > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
>> > @@ -187,6 +187,7 @@ read the file /proc/PID/status:
>> > VmLib: 1412 kB
>> > VmPTE: 20 kb
>> > VmSwap: 0 kB
>> > + VmTaskSize: 137438953468 kB
>> > HugetlbPages: 0 kB
>> > CoreDumping: 0
>> > THP_enabled: 1
>> > @@ -263,6 +264,7 @@ Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 4.19)
>> > VmPTE size of page table entries
>> > VmSwap amount of swap used by anonymous private data
>> > (shmem swap usage is not included)
>> > + VmTaskSize lowest unusable address in process virtual memory
>>
>> Can we change this help text to "size of process' virtual address space memory" ?
>
> Agree. Or go in other direction and make it VmEnd
Yeah I think VmEnd would be clearer to folks who aren't familiar with
the kernel's usage of the TASK_SIZE terminology.
>> > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
>> > index 95ca1fe7283c..0af7081f7b19 100644
>> > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
>> > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
>> > @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ void task_mem(struct seq_file *m, struct mm_struct *mm)
>> > seq_put_decimal_ull_width(m,
>> > " kB\nVmPTE:\t", mm_pgtables_bytes(mm) >> 10, 8);
>> > SEQ_PUT_DEC(" kB\nVmSwap:\t", swap);
>> > + seq_put_decimal_ull_width(m,
>> > + " kB\nVmTaskSize:\t", mm->task_size >> 10, 8);
>> > seq_puts(m, " kB\n");
>> > hugetlb_report_usage(m, mm);
>> > }
>
> I'm OK with technical part, but I still have questions not answered
> (or wrongly answered) in v1 and v2. Below is the very detailed
> description of the concerns I have.
>
> 1. What is the exact reason for it? Original version tells about some
> test that takes so much time that you were able to drink a cup of
> coffee before it was done. The test as you said implements linear
> search to find the last page and so is of O(n). If it's only for some
> random test, I think the kernel can survive without it. Do you have a
> real example of useful programs that suffer without this information?
>
>
> 2. I have nothing against taking breaks and see nothing weird if
> ineffective algorithms take time. On my system (x86, Ubuntu) the last
> mapped region according to /proc/<pid>/maps is:
> ffffffffff600000-ffffffffff601000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0 [vsyscall]
> So to find the required address, we have to inspect 2559 pages. With a
> binary search it would take 12 iterations at max. If my calculation is
> wrong or your environment is completely different - please elaborate.
I agree it should not be hard to calculate, but at the same time it's
trivial for the kernel to export the information so I don't see why the
kernel shouldn't.
> 3. As far as I can see, Linux currently does not support dynamic
> TASK_SIZE. It means that for any platform+ABI combination VmTaskSize
> will be always the same. So VmTaskSize would be effectively useless waste
> of lines. In fact, TASK SIZE is compiler time information and should
> be exposed to user in headers. In discussion to v2 Rafael Aquini answered
> for this concern that TASK_SIZE is a runtime resolved macro. It's
> true, but my main point is: GCC knows what type of binary it compiles
> and is able to select proper value. We are already doing similar things
> where appropriate. Refer for example to my arm64/ilp32 series:
>
> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h:
> -#define __BITS_PER_LONG 64
> +#if defined(__LP64__)
> +/* Assuming __LP64__ will be defined for native ELF64's and not for ILP32. */
> +# define __BITS_PER_LONG 64
> +#elif defined(__ILP32__)
> +# define __BITS_PER_LONG 32
> +#else
> +# error "Neither LP64 nor ILP32: unsupported ABI in asm/bitsperlong.h"
> +#endif
>
> __LP64__ and __ILP32__ are symbols provided by GCC to distinguish
> between ABIs. So userspace is able to take proper __BITS_PER_LONG value
> at compile time, not at runtime. I think, you can do the same thing for
> TASK_SIZE.
No you can't do it at compile time for TASK_SIZE.
On powerpc a 64-bit program might run on a kernel built with 4K pages
where TASK_SIZE is 64TB, and that same program can run on a kernel built
with 64K pages where TASK_SIZE is 4PB.
And it's not just determined by PAGE_SIZE, that same program might also
run on an older kernel where TASK_SIZE with 64K pages was 512TB.
cheers
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-10 3:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-06 15:53 [PATCH v3] fs/proc: add VmTaskSize field to /proc/$$/status Joel Savitz
2019-05-07 12:54 ` Rafael Aquini
2019-05-08 6:37 ` Yury Norov
2019-05-08 13:47 ` Rafael Aquini
2019-05-10 3:32 ` Michael Ellerman [this message]
2019-05-10 7:25 ` Yury Norov
2019-05-14 6:17 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-05-19 21:31 ` Yury Norov
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=87k1ezugqh.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au \
--to=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=aquini@redhat.com \
--cc=jsavitz@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=sspatil@android.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.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).