From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: "Daniel Colascione" <dancol@google.com>,
"Joel Fernandes" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"Sultan Alsawaf" <sultan@kerneltoast.com>,
"Tim Murray" <timmurray@google.com>,
"Michal Hocko" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Arve Hjønnevåg" <arve@android.com>,
"Todd Kjos" <tkjos@android.com>,
"Martijn Coenen" <maco@android.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] simple_lmk: Introduce Simple Low Memory Killer for Android
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 12:37:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpF-uYpUZ1RO99i2qEw5Ou4nSimSkiQvnNQ_rv8ogHKRfw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190316185726.jc53aqq5ph65ojpk@brauner.io>
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:57 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:00:10AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 10:31 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:49 AM Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 07:24:28PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > [..]
> > > > > > why do we want to add a new syscall (pidfd_wait) though? Why not just use
> > > > > > standard poll/epoll interface on the proc fd like Daniel was suggesting.
> > > > > > AFAIK, once the proc file is opened, the struct pid is essentially pinned
> > > > > > even though the proc number may be reused. Then the caller can just poll.
> > > > > > We can add a waitqueue to struct pid, and wake up any waiters on process
> > > > > > death (A quick look shows task_struct can be mapped to its struct pid) and
> > > > > > also possibly optimize it using Steve's TIF flag idea. No new syscall is
> > > > > > needed then, let me know if I missed something?
> > > > >
> > > > > Huh, I thought that Daniel was against the poll/epoll solution?
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, going through earlier threads, I believe so now. Here was Daniel's
> > > > reasoning about avoiding a notification about process death through proc
> > > > directory fd: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1811.0/00232.html
> > > >
> > > > May be a dedicated syscall for this would be cleaner after all.
> > >
> > > Ah, I wish I've seen that discussion before...
> > > syscall makes sense and it can be non-blocking and we can use
> > > select/poll/epoll if we use eventfd.
> >
> > Thanks for taking a look.
> >
> > > I would strongly advocate for
> > > non-blocking version or at least to have a non-blocking option.
> >
> > Waiting for FD readiness is *already* blocking or non-blocking
> > according to the caller's desire --- users can pass options they want
> > to poll(2) or whatever. There's no need for any kind of special
> > configuration knob or non-blocking option. We already *have* a
> > non-blocking option that works universally for everything.
> >
> > As I mentioned in the linked thread, waiting for process exit should
> > work just like waiting for bytes to appear on a pipe. Process exit
> > status is just another blob of bytes that a process might receive. A
> > process exit handle ought to be just another information source. The
> > reason the unix process API is so awful is that for whatever reason
> > the original designers treated processes as some kind of special kind
> > of resource instead of fitting them into the otherwise general-purpose
> > unix data-handling API. Let's not repeat that mistake.
> >
> > > Something like this:
> > >
> > > evfd = eventfd(0, EFD_NONBLOCK | EFD_CLOEXEC);
> > > // register eventfd to receive death notification
> > > pidfd_wait(pid_to_kill, evfd);
> > > // kill the process
> > > pidfd_send_signal(pid_to_kill, ...)
> > > // tend to other things
> >
> > Now you've lost me. pidfd_wait should return a *new* FD, not wire up
> > an eventfd.
> >
Ok, I probably misunderstood your post linked by Joel. I though your
original proposal was based on being able to poll a file under
/proc/pid and then you changed your mind to have a separate syscall
which I assumed would be a blocking one to wait for process exit.
Maybe you can describe the new interface you are thinking about in
terms of userspace usage like I did above? Several lines of code would
explain more than paragraphs of text.
> > Why? Because the new type FD can report process exit *status*
> > information (via read(2) after readability signal) as well as this
> > binary yes-or-no signal *that* a process exited, and this capability
> > is useful if you want to the pidfd interface to be a good
> > general-purpose process management facility to replace the awful
> > wait() family of functions. You can't get an exit status from an
> > eventfd. Wiring up an eventfd the way you've proposed also complicates
> > wait-causality information, complicating both tracing and any priority
> > inheritance we might want in the future (because all the wakeups gets
> > mixed into the eventfd and you can't unscramble an egg). And for what?
> > What do we gain by using an eventfd? Is the reason that exit.c would
> > be able to use eventfd_signal instead of poking a waitqueue directly?
> > How is that better? With an eventfd, you've increased path length on
> > process exit *and* complicated the API for no reason.
> >
> > > ...
> > > // wait for the process to die
> > > poll_wait(evfd, ...);
> > >
> > > This simplifies userspace
> >
> > Not relative to an exit handle it doesn't.
> >
> > >, allows it to wait for multiple events using
> > > epoll
> >
> > So does a process exit status handle.
> >
> > > and I think kernel implementation will be also quite simple
> > > because it already implements eventfd_signal() that takes care of
> > > waitqueue handling.
> >
> > What if there are multiple eventfds registered for the death of a
> > process? In any case, you need some mechanism to find, upon process
> > death, a list of waiters, then wake each of them up. That's either a
> > global search or a search in some list rooted in a task-related
> > structure (either struct task or one of its friends). Using an eventfd
> > here adds nothing, since upon death, you need this list search
> > regardless, and as I mentioned above, eventfd-wiring just makes the
> > API worse.
> >
> > > If pidfd_send_signal could be extended to have an optional eventfd
> > > parameter then we would not even have to add a new syscall.
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with adding a new system call. I don't know why
> > there's this idea circulating that adding system calls is something we
> > should bend over backwards to avoid. It's cheap, and support-wise,
> > kernel interface is kernel interface. Sending a signal has *nothing*
> > to do with wiring up some kind of notification and there's no reason
> > to mingle it with some kind of event registration.
>
>
> I agree with Daniel.
> One design goal is to not stuff clearly delinated tasks related to
> process management into the same syscall. That will just leave us with a
> confusing api. Sending signals is part of managing a process while it is
> running. Waiting on a process to end is clearly separate from that.
> It's important to keep in mind that the goal of the pidfd work is to end
> up with an api that is of use to all of user space concerned with
> process management not just a specific project.
I'm not bent on adding or not adding a new syscall as long as
functionality is there.
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-16 19:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 105+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-10 20:34 [RFC] simple_lmk: Introduce Simple Low Memory Killer for Android Sultan Alsawaf
2019-03-10 21:03 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-03-10 21:26 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-03-11 16:32 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-11 16:37 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-11 17:43 ` Michal Hocko
2019-03-11 17:58 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-03-11 20:10 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-03-11 20:46 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-03-11 21:11 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-11 21:46 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-03-11 22:15 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-03-11 22:36 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-03-12 8:05 ` Michal Hocko
2019-03-12 14:36 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-03-12 15:25 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-03-12 15:33 ` Michal Hocko
2019-03-12 15:39 ` Michal Hocko
2019-03-12 16:37 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-03-12 16:48 ` Michal Hocko
2019-03-12 16:58 ` Michal Hocko
2019-03-12 17:15 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-03-12 17:17 ` Tim Murray
2019-03-12 17:45 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-03-12 18:43 ` Tim Murray
2019-03-12 18:50 ` Christian Brauner
2019-03-14 17:47 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-14 20:49 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-03-15 2:54 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-15 3:43 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-03-15 3:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-03-15 3:45 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-03-15 4:36 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-03-15 13:36 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-15 15:56 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-03-15 16:12 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-03-15 16:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-03-15 17:17 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-03-15 18:03 ` Christian Brauner
2019-03-15 18:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-15 18:24 ` Christian Brauner
2019-03-15 18:49 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-16 17:31 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-03-16 18:00 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-03-16 18:57 ` Christian Brauner
2019-03-16 19:37 ` Suren Baghdasaryan [this message]
2019-03-17 1:53 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-17 11:42 ` Christian Brauner
2019-03-17 15:40 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-03-18 0:29 ` Christian Brauner
2019-03-18 23:50 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-19 22:14 ` Christian Brauner
2019-03-19 22:26 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-19 22:48 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-03-19 23:10 ` Christian Brauner
2019-03-20 1:52 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-20 2:42 ` pidfd design Daniel Colascione
2019-03-20 3:59 ` Christian Brauner
2019-03-20 7:02 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-03-20 11:33 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-20 18:26 ` Christian Brauner
2019-03-20 18:38 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-03-20 18:51 ` Christian Brauner
2019-03-20 18:58 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-03-20 19:14 ` Christian Brauner
2019-03-20 19:40 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-03-21 17:02 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-03-20 19:19 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-20 19:29 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-03-24 14:44 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2019-03-24 18:48 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-20 19:11 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-05-07 2:16 ` [RFC] simple_lmk: Introduce Simple Low Memory Killer for Android Sultan Alsawaf
2019-05-07 7:04 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-05-07 7:27 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-05-07 7:43 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-05-07 8:12 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-05-07 10:58 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-07 16:28 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-05-07 16:38 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-07 16:53 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-05-07 20:01 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-05-07 18:46 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-05-07 17:17 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-05-07 17:29 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-05-07 11:09 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-05-07 12:26 ` Michal Hocko
2019-05-07 15:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-07 16:35 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-05-09 15:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-09 18:33 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-05-10 15:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-13 16:45 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-05-14 16:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-14 17:31 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-05-15 14:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-05-15 17:27 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-05-15 18:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-15 18:52 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2019-05-15 20:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-16 13:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-03-17 16:35 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2019-03-17 17:11 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-03-17 17:16 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2019-03-17 22:02 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
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=CAJuCfpF-uYpUZ1RO99i2qEw5Ou4nSimSkiQvnNQ_rv8ogHKRfw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=surenb@google.com \
--cc=arve@android.com \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=dancol@google.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=maco@android.com \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sultan@kerneltoast.com \
--cc=timmurray@google.com \
--cc=tkjos@android.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).