On 16/10/2017 11:24, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Sun 15-10-17 10:50:29, Guy Shattah wrote:
On 13/10/2017 19:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 13-10-17 10:56:13, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
There is a generic posix interface that could we used for a variety of
specific hardware dependent use cases.
Yes you wrote that already and my counter argument was that this generic
posix interface shouldn't bypass virtual memory abstraction.
It does do that? In what way?
availability of the virtual address space depends on the availability of
the same sized contiguous physical memory range. That sounds like the
abstraction is gone to large part to me.
In what way? userspace users will still be working with virtual memory.
So you are saying that providing an API which fails randomly because of
the physically fragmented memory is OK? Users shouldn't really care
about the state of the physical memory. That is what we have the virtual
memory for.
Users still see and work with virtual addresses, just as before.
Users using the suggested API are aware that API might fail since it
involves current
system memory state. This won't be the first system call or the last one
to fail due to
reasons beyond user control. For example: any user app might fail due to
number of
open files, disk space, memory availability, network availability. All
beyond user control.
A smart user always has their ways to handle exceptions.
A typical user failing to allocate contiguous memory and May fallback to
allocating
non-contiguous memory. And by the way - even if each vendor implements
their own
methods to allocate contiguous memory then this vendor specific API
might fail too.
For the same reasons.
There are numerous RDMA devices that would all need the mmap
implementation. And this covers only the needs of one subsystem. There are
other use cases.
That doesn't prevent providing a library function which could be reused
by all those drivers. Nothing really too much different from
remap_pfn_range.
And then in all the other use cases as well. It would be much easier if
mmap could give you the memory you need instead of havig numerous drivers
improvise on their own. This is in particular also useful
for numerous embedded use cases where you need contiguous memory.
But a generic implementation would have to deal with many issues as
already mentioned. If you make this driver specific you can have access
control based on fd etc... I really fail to see how this is any
different from remap_pfn_range.
Why have several driver specific implementation if you can generalize the
idea and implement
an already existing POSIX standard?
Because users shouldn't really care, really. We do have means to get
large memory and having a guaranteed large memory is a PITA. Just look
at hugetlb and all the issues it exposes. And that one is preallocated
and it requires admin to do a conscious decision about the amount of the
memory. You would like to establish something similar except without
bounds to the size and no pre-allowed amount by an admin. This sounds
just crazy to me.
Users do care about the performance they get using devices which benefit
from contiguous memory allocation.
Assuming that user requires 700Mb of contiguous memory. Then why allocate
giant (1GB) page when you can allocate 700Mb out of the 1GB and put the
rest of the
300Mb back in the huge-pages/small-pages pool?
On the other hand if you make this per-device mmap implementation you
can have both admin defined policy on who is allowed this memory and
moreover drivers can implement their fallback strategies which best suit
their needs. I really fail to see how this is any different from using
specialized mmap implementations.
We tried doing it in the past. but the maintainer gave us a very good
argument:
" If you want to support anonymous mmaps to allocate large contiguous
pages work with the MM folks on providing that in a generic fashion."
After discussing it with people who have the same requirements as we do -
I totally agree with him
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.rdma/31467
I might be really wrong but I consider such a general purpose flag quite
dangerous and future maintenance burden. At least from the hugetlb/THP
history I do not see why this should be any different.
Could you please elaborate why is it dangerous and future maintenance
burden?
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
