From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.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: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 18:51:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpExoi-+TC1cR8mJMg_e+T6apoJj9x8DjTM01rw725XpQw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201113181632.6d98489465430a987c96568d@linux-foundation.org>
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 6:16 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 17:57:02 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:18 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 17:09:37 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > Seems to me that the ability to reap another process's memory is a
> > > > > > > generally useful one, and that it should not be tied to delivering a
> > > > > > > signal in this fashion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And we do have the new process_madvise(MADV_PAGEOUT). It may need a
> > > > > > > few changes and tweaks, but can't that be used to solve this problem?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the feedback, Andrew. process_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) was
> > > > > > one of the options recently discussed in
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-api/CAJuCfpGz1kPM3G1gZH+09Z7aoWKg05QSAMMisJ7H5MdmRrRhNQ@mail.gmail.com
> > > > > > . The thread describes some of the issues with that approach but if we
> > > > > > limit it to processes with pending SIGKILL only then I think that
> > > > > > would be doable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would it be necessary to read /proc/pid/maps? I'd have thought
> > > > > that a starting effort would be
> > > > >
> > > > > madvise((void *)0, (void *)-1, MADV_PAGEOUT)
> > > > >
> > > > > (after translation into process_madvise() speak). Which is equivalent
> > > > > to the proposed process_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED_MM)?
> > > >
> > > > Yep, this is very similar to option #3 in
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-api/CAJuCfpGz1kPM3G1gZH+09Z7aoWKg05QSAMMisJ7H5MdmRrRhNQ@mail.gmail.com
> > > > and I actually have a tested prototype for that.
> > >
> > > Why is the `vector=NULL' needed? Can't `vector' point at a single iovec
> > > which spans the whole address range?
> >
> > That would be the option #4 from the same discussion and the issues
> > noted there are "process_madvise return value can't handle such a
> > large number of bytes and there is MAX_RW_COUNT limit on max number of
> > bytes one process_madvise call can handle". In my prototype I have a
> > special handling for such "bulk operation" to work around the
> > MAX_RW_COUNT limitation.
>
> Ah, OK, return value. Maybe process_madvise() shouldn't have done that
> and should have simply returned 0 on success, like madvise().
>
> I guess a special "nuke whole address space" command is OK. But, again
> in the search for generality, the ability to nuke very large amounts of
> address space (but not the entire address space) would be better.
>
> The process_madvise() return value issue could be addressed by adding a
> process_madvise() mode which return 0 on success.
>
> And I guess the MAX_RW_COUNT issue is solvable by adding an
> import_iovec() arg to say "don't check that". Along those lines.
>
> 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 see. So you are suggesting a mode where process_madvise() can
operate on large areas spanning multiple VMAs. This slightly differs
from option 4 in the previous RFC which suggested a special mode that
operates on the *entire* mm of the process. I agree, your suggestion
is more generic.
>
> > >
> > > > If that's the
> > > > preferred method then I can post it quite quickly.
> > >
> > > I assume you've tested that prototype. How did its usefulness compare
> > > with this SIGKILL-based approach?
> >
> > Just to make sure I understand correctly your question, you are asking
> > about performance comparison of:
> >
> > // approach in this RFC
> > pidfd_send_signal(SIGKILL, SYNC_REAP_MM)
> >
> > vs
> >
> > // option #4 in the previous RFC
> > kill(SIGKILL); process_madvise(vector=NULL, MADV_DONTNEED);
> >
> > If so, I have results for the current RFC approach but the previous
> > approach was testing on an older device, so don't have
> > apples-to-apples comparison results at the moment. I can collect the
> > data for fair comparison if desired, however I don't expect a
> > noticeable performance difference since they both do pretty much the
> > same thing (even on different devices my results are quite close). I
> > think it's more a question of which API would be more appropriate.
>
> OK. I wouldn't expect performance to be very different (and things can
> be sped up if so), but the API usefulness might be an issue. Using
> process_madvise() (or similar) makes it a two-step operation, whereas
> tying it to SIGKILL&&TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE provides a more precise tool.
> Any thoughts on this?
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-14 2:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-13 17:34 [PATCH 1/1] RFC: add pidfd_send_signal flag to reclaim mm while killing a process Suren Baghdasaryan
2020-11-13 23:55 ` Andrew Morton
2020-11-14 0:06 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2020-11-14 1:00 ` Andrew Morton
2020-11-14 1:09 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2020-11-14 1:18 ` Andrew Morton
2020-11-14 1:57 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2020-11-14 2:16 ` Andrew Morton
2020-11-14 2:51 ` Suren Baghdasaryan [this message]
2020-11-16 23:24 ` Minchan Kim
2020-11-18 19:10 ` Michal Hocko
2020-11-18 19:22 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2020-11-18 19:32 ` Michal Hocko
2020-11-18 19:51 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2020-11-18 19:55 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2020-11-19 0:13 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2020-11-24 5:45 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2020-11-18 10:32 ` Christian Brauner
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=CAJuCfpExoi-+TC1cR8mJMg_e+T6apoJj9x8DjTM01rw725XpQw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=surenb@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--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=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=timmurray@google.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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).