From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36769C43381 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 11:42:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C864C21019 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 11:42:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brauner.io header.i=@brauner.io header.b="ZIPxt6SS" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C864C21019 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=brauner.io Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4AE666B02EB; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 07:42:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 45D236B02EC; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 07:42:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 327B56B02ED; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 07:42:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-ed1-f71.google.com (mail-ed1-f71.google.com [209.85.208.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA9DE6B02EB for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 07:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f71.google.com with SMTP id x13so5756226edq.11 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:42:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:dkim-signature:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=YclABiHuTnjl2QFtYMQH4ry+g51OvyNkv8LG/hhb3tI=; b=kEEC5vuKItUwjFjFg8/jLDvpj/aEB1P4g4LCK4CJ97yFDKdSWvz5K1geterLGufDUA v9awIjzVkkdQ5XGHCMYRU1/HIS7d0VAsdoeHov3bjxH54g8y9RwN0Bg119XO/KsMOPvI h0fFbBGQcBbvY/jivokxfDC3Sa+KHzZr546y8MtKxr5l8gYi3BQeUQeX+CIpaKWYKAVB MiT5tZD7T3M/OePMCs6EAAM9PLAfQy/xgV7a32HJ1b1Z63ZIcmi+3+GjuescCzqUblfT gLfE5Q57XC9XbvbokeTD3AmEG6hZVG7YjyaZij5l/+8qkbRlvT41HUNZExjcFcWtyVan fV/A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUB8UovZUMNzueqttxvnIz+JsoN7mxhrT0mgoWJTOat3PM4XoIQ 7r9wW3KHSn6MU1PTAhF6YZkoHZZbwQE1VpzAeF6EzBb9YHOoj3J4BqFwlosBrko1u2NqTuYdHsw GjK34+EpBlwBOHUTbQwba6QDJMJ4+B3qCjMnI/DBz1TKlocDPYKdN7KC7i+opDrolCg== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d9d2:: with SMTP id v18mr9248646eds.74.1552822964245; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:42:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d9d2:: with SMTP id v18mr9248603eds.74.1552822963198; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:42:43 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1552822963; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=d1VK4gU9W+C7wWH2Sf7a+pwQ8FkRsx4dr84a4a5WcKmaqi3vBn/fBCsOhCJUIOjzDr z4RZgZFRduraGhsfvVBgUYh1uR3GYI0JOxZAtoSbfPlfjd4/dGUN0NKOAXZ6nh+2F9cq nV8q8Wqx9WzCqCdjWhutfGqgvkkJlRPNRBZuxY9yssVwgrEYicQnXHcSf4/Zd813HMle 6UYiF5NqFhY5PQM4NICwcYflXV1vQQ26EDMWXSLCFfbz6AhjajGsUet4nxFx8W3vCjT4 VVx4QHoaMyDsa1Pp/Ad6I9zPx7CS9PqbW5wiS7XdRpKDEGCSalPKTgaC3+rb0cYyozr1 zF/w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=YclABiHuTnjl2QFtYMQH4ry+g51OvyNkv8LG/hhb3tI=; b=pZMg3FpicxHYVHBXd78Ut35iGtufk7Xky0sWLyvtCNspYW9tKAfC6SeVeeevNUPWJu qb6lqE0oIhlpBfIDY8J5WUNi2dBF5K07V3ewikvja9u1GWgzWeZFFMUQ6YiMMp1Qj+8s z4KcuYU+gGAdfNCy1CTDY2mbCSyw8bP3+m40xzLXrSkmDwoDb0YiT9dZrHpaOANKDAFM PwtaqRljBkprD3i9fBs2zMitF+uvLZBtoIDpDnl1iMRBUiLs+nGsQPMSpK5jFOM7HYKq c40dcZpNJvjfGn9230Jx045BNV8ULht4/oeAmz8X7RixiDIj23uZXWJKNfypSTd6+vJH xAVQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@brauner.io header.s=google header.b=ZIPxt6SS; spf=pass (google.com: domain of christian@brauner.io designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=christian@brauner.io Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id w22sor3700537edd.25.2019.03.17.04.42.43 for (Google Transport Security); Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of christian@brauner.io designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.65; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@brauner.io header.s=google header.b=ZIPxt6SS; spf=pass (google.com: domain of christian@brauner.io designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=christian@brauner.io DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brauner.io; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=YclABiHuTnjl2QFtYMQH4ry+g51OvyNkv8LG/hhb3tI=; b=ZIPxt6SSVDiLulatoUNz98X0CNjmV6Ds1efoD235rftaX8w9b8tnnJtqLeyz1SIuvQ ptGQj1RMfH6DURu3CFIqpVPXkPk6p3KuICtI+xBq5XfRL4bpvDmhiKnNpPzrEAdgGvRH 2QAOKkzJ0wpuznKaC2e46KtXSIOAC5FGZWxOI7CiamsYQGiIaLq6bcUbSmSBXXWopv+e +GguqJieiTV5nluiBbBO1OSlwqc1fLYxDOFrOe1sXeThfdrviamX3JAuMoAV7gCE9qV4 t/NW0sxVP8lo5XBfaMxz4+n4nhrOfC29AWyU1xJHGqY3EQ5bkS/EDjHB/6tI63ILC2Er CD2Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxdkEJ/In5R0Lt1K65CD08NBBRFEvd7oogj0quACTIgt8R00GztjQkANsFFKxP0iu5gJ/QsAA== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:db04:: with SMTP id t4mr9116387eds.173.1552822962825; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brauner.io ([88.128.80.37]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n10sm1713459ejl.22.2019.03.17.04.42.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 12:42:40 +0100 From: Christian Brauner To: Joel Fernandes Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan , Daniel Colascione , Steven Rostedt , Sultan Alsawaf , Tim Murray , Michal Hocko , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Arve =?utf-8?B?SGrDuG5uZXbDpWc=?= , Todd Kjos , Martijn Coenen , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , "open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" , linux-mm , kernel-team , oleg@redhat.com, luto@amacapital.net, serge@hallyn.com Subject: Re: [RFC] simple_lmk: Introduce Simple Low Memory Killer for Android Message-ID: <20190317114238.ab6tvvovpkpozld5@brauner.io> References: <20190315180306.sq3z645p3hygrmt2@brauner.io> <20190315181324.GA248160@google.com> <20190315182426.sujcqbzhzw4llmsa@brauner.io> <20190315184903.GB248160@google.com> <20190316185726.jc53aqq5ph65ojpk@brauner.io> <20190317015306.GA167393@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190317015306.GA167393@google.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 09:53:06PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 12:37:18PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:57 AM Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:00:10AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 10:31 AM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:49 AM Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 07:24:28PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > why do we want to add a new syscall (pidfd_wait) though? Why not just use > > > > > > > > standard poll/epoll interface on the proc fd like Daniel was suggesting. > > > > > > > > AFAIK, once the proc file is opened, the struct pid is essentially pinned > > > > > > > > even though the proc number may be reused. Then the caller can just poll. > > > > > > > > We can add a waitqueue to struct pid, and wake up any waiters on process > > > > > > > > death (A quick look shows task_struct can be mapped to its struct pid) and > > > > > > > > also possibly optimize it using Steve's TIF flag idea. No new syscall is > > > > > > > > needed then, let me know if I missed something? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Huh, I thought that Daniel was against the poll/epoll solution? > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, going through earlier threads, I believe so now. Here was Daniel's > > > > > > reasoning about avoiding a notification about process death through proc > > > > > > directory fd: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1811.0/00232.html > > > > > > > > > > > > May be a dedicated syscall for this would be cleaner after all. > > > > > > > > > > Ah, I wish I've seen that discussion before... > > > > > syscall makes sense and it can be non-blocking and we can use > > > > > select/poll/epoll if we use eventfd. > > > > > > > > Thanks for taking a look. > > > > > > > > > I would strongly advocate for > > > > > non-blocking version or at least to have a non-blocking option. > > > > > > > > Waiting for FD readiness is *already* blocking or non-blocking > > > > according to the caller's desire --- users can pass options they want > > > > to poll(2) or whatever. There's no need for any kind of special > > > > configuration knob or non-blocking option. We already *have* a > > > > non-blocking option that works universally for everything. > > > > > > > > As I mentioned in the linked thread, waiting for process exit should > > > > work just like waiting for bytes to appear on a pipe. Process exit > > > > status is just another blob of bytes that a process might receive. A > > > > process exit handle ought to be just another information source. The > > > > reason the unix process API is so awful is that for whatever reason > > > > the original designers treated processes as some kind of special kind > > > > of resource instead of fitting them into the otherwise general-purpose > > > > unix data-handling API. Let's not repeat that mistake. > > > > > > > > > Something like this: > > > > > > > > > > evfd = eventfd(0, EFD_NONBLOCK | EFD_CLOEXEC); > > > > > // register eventfd to receive death notification > > > > > pidfd_wait(pid_to_kill, evfd); > > > > > // kill the process > > > > > pidfd_send_signal(pid_to_kill, ...) > > > > > // tend to other things > > > > > > > > Now you've lost me. pidfd_wait should return a *new* FD, not wire up > > > > an eventfd. > > > > > > > > Ok, I probably misunderstood your post linked by Joel. I though your > > original proposal was based on being able to poll a file under > > /proc/pid and then you changed your mind to have a separate syscall > > which I assumed would be a blocking one to wait for process exit. > > Maybe you can describe the new interface you are thinking about in > > terms of userspace usage like I did above? Several lines of code would > > explain more than paragraphs of text. > > Hey, Thanks Suren for the eventfd idea. I agree with Daniel on this. The idea > from Daniel here is to wait for process death and exit events by just > referring to a stable fd, independent of whatever is going on in /proc. > > What is needed is something like this (in highly pseudo-code form): > > pidfd = opendir("/proc/",..); > wait_fd = pidfd_wait(pidfd); > read or poll wait_fd (non-blocking or blocking whichever) > > wait_fd will block until the task has either died or reaped. In both these > cases, it can return a suitable string such as "dead" or "reaped" although an > integer with some predefined meaning is also Ok. > > What that guarantees is, even if the task's PID has been reused, or the task > has already died or already died + reaped, all of these events cannot race > with the code above and the information passed to the user is race-free and > stable / guaranteed. > > An eventfd seems to not fit well, because AFAICS passing the raw PID to > eventfd as in your example would still race since the PID could have been > reused by another process by the time the eventfd is created. > > Also Andy's idea in [1] seems to use poll flags to communicate various tihngs > which is still not as explicit about the PID's status so that's a poor API > choice compared to the explicit syscall. > > I am planning to work on a prototype patch based on Daniel's idea and post something > soon (chatted with Daniel about it and will reference him in the posting as > well), during this posting I will also summarize all the previous discussions > and come up with some tests as well. I hope to have something soon. Having pidfd_wait() return another fd will make the syscall harder to swallow for a lot of people I reckon. What exactly prevents us from making the pidfd itself readable/pollable for the exit staus? They are "special" fds anyway. I would really like to avoid polluting the api with multiple different types of fds if possible. ret = pidfd_wait(pidfd); read or poll pidfd (Note that I'm traveling so my responses might be delayed quite a bit.) (Ccing a few people that might have an opinion here.) Christian