On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 08:19:41PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 05.03.25 19:56, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:15:55AM -0800, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > For MADV_DONTNEED[_LOCKED] or MADV_FREE madvise requests, tlb flushes
> > > can happen for each vma of the given address ranges. Because such tlb
> > > flushes are for address ranges of same process, doing those in a batch
> > > is more efficient while still being safe. Modify madvise() and
> > > process_madvise() entry level code path to do such batched tlb flushes,
> > > while the internal unmap logics do only gathering of the tlb entries to
> > > flush.
> >
> > Do real applications actually do madvise requests that span multiple
> > VMAs? It just seems weird to me. Like, each vma comes from a separate
> > call to mmap [1], so why would it make sense for an application to
> > call madvise() across a VMA boundary?
>
> I had the same question. If this happens in an app, I would assume that a
> single MADV_DONTNEED call would usually not span multiples VMAs, and if it
> does, not that many (and that often) that we would really care about it.
>
> OTOH, optimizing tlb flushing when using a vectored MADV_DONTNEED version
> would make more sense to me. I don't recall if process_madvise() allows for
> that already, and if it does, is this series primarily tackling optimizing
> that?
Yeah it's weird, but people can get caught out by unexpected failures to merge
if they do fun stuff with mremap().
Then again mremap() itself _mandates_ that you only span a single VMA (or part
of one) :)
Can we talk about the _true_ horror show that - you can span multiple VMAs _with
gaps_ and it'll allow you, only it'll return -ENOMEM at the end?
In madvise_walk_vmas():
for (;;) {
...
if (start < vma->vm_start) {
unmapped_error = -ENOMEM;
start = vma->vm_start;
...
}
...
error = visit(vma, &prev, start, tmp, arg);
if (error)
return error;
...
}
return unmapped_error;
So, you have no idea if that -ENOMEM is due to a gap, or do to the
operation returning an -ENOMEM?
I mean can we just drop this? Does anybody in their right mind rely on
this? Or is it intentional to deal with somehow a racing unmap?
But, no, we hold an mmap lock so that's not it.
Yeah OK so can we drop this madness? :) or am I missing some very important
detail about why we allow this?
I guess spanning multiple VMAs we _have_ to leave in because plausibly
there are users of that out there?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
