Re: [PATCH V5 0/7] Allow user to request memory to be locked on page fault

[Eric B Munson <emunson@akamai.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2925 bytes --]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> On 07/28/2015 03:49 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> >On Tue, 28 Jul 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> 
> [...]
> 
> >The only
> >remaining question I have is should we have 2 new mlockall flags so that
> >the caller can explicitly set VM_LOCKONFAULT in the mm->def_flags vs
> >locking all current VMAs on fault.  I ask because if the user wants to
> >lock all current VMAs the old way, but all future VMAs on fault they
> >have to call mlockall() twice:
> >
> >	mlockall(MCL_CURRENT);
> >	mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE | MCL_ONFAULT);
> >
> >This has the side effect of converting all the current VMAs to
> >VM_LOCKONFAULT, but because they were all made present and locked in the
> >first call, this should not matter in most cases.
> 
> Shouldn't the user be able to do this?
> 
> mlockall(MCL_CURRENT)
> mlockall(MCL_FUTURE | MCL_ONFAULT);
> 
> Note that the second call shouldn't change (i.e. munlock) existing
> vma's just because MCL_CURRENT is not present. The current
> implementation doesn't do that thanks to the following in
> do_mlockall():
> 
>         if (flags == MCL_FUTURE)
>                 goto out;
> 
> before current vma's are processed and MCL_CURRENT is checked. This
> is probably so that do_mlockall() can also handle the munlockall()
> syscall.
> So we should be careful not to break this, but otherwise there are
> no limitations by not having two MCL_ONFAULT flags. Having to do
> invoke syscalls instead of one is not an issue as this shouldn't be
> frequent syscall.

Good catch, my current implementation did break this and is now fixed.

> 
> >The catch is that,
> >like mmap(MAP_LOCKED), mlockall() does not communicate if mm_populate()
> >fails.  This has been true of mlockall() from the beginning so I don't
> >know if it needs more than an entry in the man page to clarify (which I
> >will add when I add documentation for MCL_ONFAULT).
> 
> Good point.
> 
> >In a much less
> >likely corner case, it is not possible in the current setup to request
> >all current VMAs be VM_LOCKONFAULT and all future be VM_LOCKED.
> 
> So again this should work:
> 
> mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_ONFAULT)
> mlockall(MCL_FUTURE);
> 
> But the order matters here, as current implementation of
> do_mlockall() will clear VM_LOCKED from def_flags if MCL_FUTURE is
> not passed. So *it's different* from how it handles MCL_CURRENT (as
> explained above). And not documented in manpage. Oh crap, this API
> is a closet full of skeletons. Maybe it was an unnoticed regression
> and we can restore some sanity?

I will add a note about the ordering problem to the manpage as well.
Unfortunately, the basic idea of clearing VM_LOCKED from mm->def_flags
if MCL_FUTURE is not specified but not doing the same for MCL_CURRENT
predates the move to git, so I am not sure if it was ever different.


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]