On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 1:45 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Sandeep, > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 10:56:33AM -0700, Sandeep Patil wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:02:55AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 07:51:33PM -0700, Chenbo Feng wrote: > > > > From: Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > By traversing /proc/*/fd and /proc/*/map_files, processes with CAP_ADMIN > > > > can get a lot of fine-grained data about how shmem buffers are shared > > > > among processes. stat(2) on each entry gives the caller a unique > > > > ID (st_ino), the buffer's size (st_size), and even the number of pages > > > > currently charged to the buffer (st_blocks / 512). > > > > > > > > In contrast, all dma-bufs share the same anonymous inode. So while we > > > > can count how many dma-buf fds or mappings a process has, we can't get > > > > the size of the backing buffers or tell if two entries point to the same > > > > dma-buf. On systems with debugfs, we can get a per-buffer breakdown of > > > > size and reference count, but can't tell which processes are actually > > > > holding the references to each buffer. > > > > > > > > Replace the singleton inode with full-fledged inodes allocated by > > > > alloc_anon_inode(). This involves creating and mounting a > > > > mini-pseudo-filesystem for dma-buf, following the example in fs/aio.c. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > I believe Greg's address needs to be updated on this patch otherwise the > > > emails would just bounce, no? I removed it from the CC list. You can still > > > keep the SOB I guess but remove it from the CC list when sending. > > > > > > Also about the minifs, just playing devil's advocate for why this is needed. > > > > > > Since you are already adding the size information to /proc/pid/fdinfo/<fd> , > > > can just that not be used to get the size of the buffer? What is the benefit > > > of getting this from stat? The other way to get the size would be through > > > another IOCTL and that can be used to return other unique-ness related metadata > > > as well. Neither of these need creation of a dedicated inode per dmabuf. > > > > Can you give an example of "unique-ness related data" here? The inode seems > > like the best fit cause its already unique, no? > > I was thinking dma_buf file pointer, but I agree we need the per-inode now (see below). > > > > Also what is the benefit of having st_blocks from stat? AFAIK, that is the > > > same as the buffer's size which does not change for the lifetime of the > > > buffer. In your patch you're doing this when 'struct file' is created which > > > AIUI is what reflects in the st_blocks: > > > + inode_set_bytes(inode, dmabuf->size); > > > > Can some of the use cases / data be trimmed down? I think so. For example, I > > never understood what we do with map_files here (or why). It is perfectly > > fine to just get the data from /proc/<pid>/fd and /proc/<pid>/maps. I guess > > the map_files bit is for consistency? > > It just occured to me that since /proc/<pid/maps provides an inode number as > one of the fields, so indeed an inode per buf is a very good idea for the > user to distinguish buffers just by reading /proc/<pid/<maps> alone.. > > I also, similar to you, don't think map_files is useful for this usecase. > map_files are just symlinks named as memory ranges and pointing to a file. In > this case the symlink will point to default name "dmabuf" that doesn't exist. > If one does stat(2) on a map_file link, then it just returns the inode number > of the symlink, not what the map_file is pointing to, which seems kind of > useless. > I might be wrong but I don't think we did anything special for the map_files in this patch. I think the confusion might be from commit message where Greg mentioned the map_files to describe the behavior of shmem buffer when comparing it with dma-buf. The file system implementation and the file allocation action in this patch are just some minimal effort to associate each dma_buf object with an inode and properly populate the size information in the file object. And we didn't use proc/pid/map_files at all in the android implementation indeed. > > Which makes me think both maps and map_files can be made more useful if we can > also make DMA_BUF_SET_NAME in the patch change the underlying dentry's name > from the default "dmabuf" to "dmabuf:<name>" ? > > That would be useful because: > 1. It should make /proc/pid/maps also have the name than always showing > "dmabuf". > 2. It should make map_files also point to the name of the buffer than just > "dmabuf". Note that memfd_create(2) already takes a name and the maps_file > for this points to the name of the buffer created and showing it in both maps > and map_files. > > I think this also removes the need for DMA_BUF_GET_NAME ioctl since the > dentry's name already has the information. I can try to look into that... > BTW any case we should not need GET_NAME ioctl since fdinfo already has the > name after SET_NAME is called. So let us drop that API? > > > May be, to make it generic, we make the tracking part optional somehow to > > avoid the apparent wastage on other systems. > > Yes, that's also fine. But I think if we can bake tracking into existing > mechanism and keep it always On, then that's also good for all other dmabuf > users as well and simplifies the kernel configuration for vendors. > > > > I am not against adding of inode per buffer, but I think we should have this > > > debate and make the right design choice here for what we really need. > > > > sure. > > Right, so just to summarize: > - The intention here is /proc/<pid>/maps will give uniqueness (via the inode > number) between different memory ranges. That I think is the main benefit > of the patch. > - stat gives the size of buffer as does fdinfo > - fdinfo is useful to get the reference count of number of sharers of the > buffer. > - map_files is not that useful for this usecase but can be made useful if > we can name the underlying file's dentry to something other than "dmabuf". > - GET_NAME is not needed since fdinfo already has the SET_NAMEd name. > > Do you agree? > Thanks for summarize it, I will look into the GET_NAME/SET_NAME ioctl to make it more useful as you suggested above. Also, I will try to add some test to verify the behavior. > > Just to lay it out, there is a cost to unique inode. Each struct inode is 560 > bytes on mainline with x86_64_defconfig. With 1000 buffers, we're looking at > ~ 0.5MB of allocation. However I think I am convinced we need to do it > considering the advantages, and the size is trivial considering advantages. > Arguably large number dmabuf allocations are more likely to succeed with > devices with larger memory resources anyway :) > > It is good to have this discussion. > > thanks, > > - Joel > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kernel-team" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx. >
