On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 4:44 AM Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 01:28:40PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 28-05-19 20:12:08, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:41:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Tue 28-05-19 19:32:56, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:08:21AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > On Tue 28-05-19 17:49:27, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 01:31:13AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:14 AM Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > if we went with the per vma fd approach then you would get this > > > > > > > > > > feature automatically because map_files would refer to file backed > > > > > > > > > > mappings while map_anon could refer only to anonymous mappings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason to add such filter option is to avoid the parsing overhead > > > > > > > > > so map_anon wouldn't be helpful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Without chiming on whether the filter option is a good idea, I'd like > > > > > > > > to suggest that providing an efficient binary interfaces for pulling > > > > > > > > memory map information out of processes. Some single-system-call > > > > > > > > method for retrieving a binary snapshot of a process's address space > > > > > > > > complete with attributes (selectable, like statx?) for each VMA would > > > > > > > > reduce complexity and increase performance in a variety of areas, > > > > > > > > e.g., Android memory map debugging commands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree it's the best we can get *generally*. > > > > > > > Michal, any opinion? > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not really sure this is directly related. I think the primary > > > > > > question that we have to sort out first is whether we want to have > > > > > > the remote madvise call process or vma fd based. This is an important > > > > > > distinction wrt. usability. I have only seen pid vs. pidfd discussions > > > > > > so far unfortunately. > > > > > > > > > > With current usecase, it's per-process API with distinguishable anon/file > > > > > but thought it could be easily extended later for each address range > > > > > operation as userspace getting smarter with more information. > > > > > > > > Never design user API based on a single usecase, please. The "easily > > > > extended" part is by far not clear to me TBH. As I've already mentioned > > > > several times, the synchronization model has to be thought through > > > > carefuly before a remote process address range operation can be > > > > implemented. > > > > > > I agree with you that we shouldn't design API on single usecase but what > > > you are concerning is actually not our usecase because we are resilient > > > with the race since MADV_COLD|PAGEOUT is not destruptive. > > > Actually, many hints are already racy in that the upcoming pattern would > > > be different with the behavior you thought at the moment. > > > > How come they are racy wrt address ranges? You would have to be in > > multithreaded environment and then the onus of synchronization is on > > threads. That model is quite clear. But we are talking about separate > > Think about MADV_FREE. Allocator would think the chunk is worth to mark > "freeable" but soon, user of the allocator asked the chunk - ie, it's not > freeable any longer once user start to use it. > > My point is that kinds of *hints* are always racy so any synchronization > couldn't help a lot. That's why I want to restrict hints process_madvise > supports as such kinds of non-destruptive one at next respin. I think it's more natural for process_madvise to be a superset of regular madvise. What's the harm? There are no security implications, since anyone who could process_madvise could just ptrace anyway. I also don't think limiting the hinting to non-destructive operations guarantees safety (in a broad sense) either, since operating on the wrong memory range can still cause unexpected system performance issues even if there's no data loss. More broadly, what I want to see is a family of process_* APIs that provide a superset of the functionality that the existing intraprocess APIs provide. I think this approach is elegant and generalizes easily. I'm worried about prematurely limiting the interprocess memory APIs and creating limitations that will last a long time in order to avoid having to consider issues like VMA synchronization.
