On Tue 28-05-19 20:44:36, Minchan Kim 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. That is not a race in the address space, right. The underlying object hasn't changed. It has been declared as freeable and since that moment nobody can rely on the content because it might have been discarded. Or put simply, the content is undefined. It is responsibility of the madvise caller to make sure that the object is not in active use while it is marking 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 agree that a non-destructive operations are safer against paralel modifications because you just get a annoying and unexpected latency at worst case. But we should discuss whether this assumption is sufficient for further development. I am pretty sure once we open remote madvise people will find usecases for destructive operations or even new madvise modes we haven't heard of. What then? > > processes and some of them might be even not aware of an external entity > > tweaking their address space. > > > > > If you are still concerning of address range synchronization, how about > > > moving such hints to per-process level like prctl? > > > Does it make sense to you? > > > > No it doesn't. How is prctl any relevant to any address range > > operations. > > "whether we want to have the remote madvise call process or vma fd based." Still not following. So you want to have a prctl (one of the worst API we have along with ioctl) to tell the semantic? This sounds like a terrible idea to me. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
