On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:43 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There is some usecase that centralized userspace daemon want to give > a memory hint like MADV_[COLD|PAGEEOUT] to other process. Android's > ActivityManagerService is one of them. > > It's similar in spirit to madvise(MADV_WONTNEED), but the information > required to make the reclaim decision is not known to the app. Instead, > it is known to the centralized userspace daemon(ActivityManagerService), > and that daemon must be able to initiate reclaim on its own without > any app involvement. > > To solve the issue, this patch introduces new syscall process_madvise(2). > It could give a hint to the exeternal process of pidfd. > > int process_madvise(int pidfd, void *addr, size_t length, int advise, > unsigned long cookie, unsigned long flag); > > Since it could affect other process's address range, only privileged > process(CAP_SYS_PTRACE) or something else(e.g., being the same UID) > gives it the right to ptrace the process could use it successfully. > > The syscall has a cookie argument to privode atomicity(i.e., detect > target process's address space change since monitor process has parsed > the address range of target process so the operaion could fail in case > of happening race). Although there is no interface to get a cookie > at this moment, it could be useful to consider it as argument to avoid > introducing another new syscall in future. It could support *atomicity* > for disruptive hint(e.g., MADV_DONTNEED|FREE). > flag argument is reserved for future use if we need to extend the API. How about a compromise? Let's allow all madvise hints if the process is calling process_madvise *on itself* (which will be useful once we wire up the atomicity cookie) and restrict the cross-process case to the hints you've mentioned. This way, the restriction on madvise hints isn't tied to the specific API, but to the relationship between hinter and hintee.
