On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:58 PM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> But currently remote GUP will still do the page fault accounting on the remote
> task_struct, am I right? E.g., when the get_user_pages_remote() is called with
> "tsk != current", it seems the faultin_page() will still do maj_flt/min_flt
> accounting for that remote task/thread?
Well, that would be a data race and fundamentally buggy.
It would be ok with something like ptrace (which only works when the
target is quiescent), but is completely wrong otherwise.
I guess it works fine in practice, and it's only statistics so even if
you were to have a data race it doesn't much matter, but it's
definitely conceptually very very wrong.
The fault stats should be about who does the fault (they are about the
_thread_) not about who the fault is done to (which is about the
_mm_).
Allocating the fault data to somebody else sounds frankly silly and
stupid to me, exactly because it's (a) racy and (b) not even
conceptually correct. The other thread literally _isn't_ doing a major
page fault, for crissake!
Now, there are some actual per-mm statistics too (the rss stuff etc),
and it's fundamentally harder exactly because of the shared data. See
the mm_counter stuff etc. Those are not about who does soemthing, they
are about the resulting MM state.
Linus
