From: Andrea Arcangeli <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Prakash Sangappa <email@example.com> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Dave Hansen <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Mike Rapoport <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mike Kravetz <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlbfs 'noautofill' mount option Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 15:15:54 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170616131554.GD11676@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Hello Prakash, On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 01:59:34PM -0700, Prakash Sangappa wrote: > > > On 5/9/17 1:58 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:12:42PM -0700, prakash.sangappa wrote: > >> Regarding #3 as a general feature, do we want to > >> consider this and the complexity associated with the > >> implementation? > > We have to. Given that no one has exclusive access to hugetlbfs > > a mount option is fundamentally the wrong interface. > > > A hugetlbfs filesystem may need to be mounted for exclusive use by > an application. Note, recently the 'min_size' mount option was added > to hugetlbfs, which would reserve minimum number of huge pages > for that filesystem for use by an application. If the filesystem with > min size specified, is not setup for exclusive use by an application, > then the purpose of reserving huge pages is defeated. The > min_size option was for use by applications like the database. > > Also, I am investigating enabling hugetlbfs mounts within user > namespace's mount namespace. That would allow an application > to mount a hugetlbfs filesystem inside a namespace exclusively for > its use, running as a non root user. For this it seems like the 'min_size' > should be subject to some user limits. Anyways, mounting inside > user namespaces is a different discussion. > > So, if a filesystem has to be setup for exclusive use by an application, > then different mount options can be used for that filesystem. Before userfaultfd I used a madvise that triggered SIGBUS. Aside from performance that is much lower than userfaultfd because of the return to userland, SIGBUS handling and new enter kernel to communicate through a pipe with a memory manager, it couldn't work reliably because you're not going to get exact information on the virtual address that triggered the fault if the SIGBUS triggers in some random in a copy-user of some random syscall, depending on the syscall some random error will be returned. So it couldn't work transparently to the app as far as syscalls and get_user_pages drivers were concerned. With your solution if you pass a corrupted pointer to a random read() syscall you're going to get a error, but supposedly you already handle any syscall error and stop the app. This is a special case because you don't care about performance and you don't care about not returning random EFAULT errors from syscalls like read(). This mount option seems non intrusive enough and hugetlbfs is quite special already, so I'm not particularly concerned by the fact it's one more special tweak. If it would be enough to convert the SIGBUS into a (killable) process hang, you could still use uffd and there would be no need to send the uffd to a manager. You'd find the corrupting buggy process stuck in handle_userfault(). As an alternative to the mount option we could consider adding UFFD_FEATURE_SIGBUS that tells the handle_userfault() to simply return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS in presence of a pagefault event. You'd still get weird EFAULT or erratic retvals from syscalls so it would only be usable in for your robustness feature. Then you could use UFFDIO_COPY too to fill the memory atomically which runs faster than a page fault (fallocate punch hole still required to zap it). Adding a single if (ctx->feature & UFFD_FEATURE_SIGBUS) goto out, branch for this corner case to handle_userfault() isn't great and the hugetlbfs mount option is absolutely zero cost to the handle_userfault which is primarily why I'm not against it.. although it's not going to be measurable so it would be ok also to add such feature. Thanks, Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-16 13:15 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <email@example.com> 2017-05-01 18:00 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-05-02 10:53 ` Anshuman Khandual 2017-05-02 16:07 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-05-02 21:32 ` Dave Hansen 2017-05-02 23:34 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-05-02 23:43 ` Dave Hansen 2017-05-03 19:02 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-05-08 5:57 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-05-08 15:58 ` Dave Hansen 2017-05-08 22:12 ` prakash.sangappa 2017-05-09 8:58 ` Christoph Hellwig 2017-05-09 20:59 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-05-16 16:51 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-06-16 13:15 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message] 2017-06-20 23:35 ` Prakash Sangappa 2017-06-27 20:57 ` Prakash Sangappa
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=20170616131554.GD11676@redhat.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlbfs '\''noautofill'\'' mount option' \ /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
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).