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=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, FSL_HELO_FAKE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 991EDC2D0DB for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 18:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D31722522 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 18:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="NEFX/ezy" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4D31722522 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id CDBEA6B0289; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:11:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C66566B028C; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:11:19 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B2D366B028D; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:11:19 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0231.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.231]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9593C6B0289 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:11:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin06.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DF70181AEF15 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 18:11:19 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76402433478.06.fact39_288b249cff84d X-HE-Tag: fact39_288b249cff84d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 8321 Received: from mail-pf1-f196.google.com (mail-pf1-f196.google.com [209.85.210.196]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 18:11:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-f196.google.com with SMTP id x6so1884741pfo.10 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:11:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=RZ+UzF1ke9VKh6CSTY/ooI3vzWKiS8jZf7sDVSihHD4=; b=NEFX/ezysY8snsP6VwgBPghhixLPcadjK8oX5390jYlUyypNu5b/NtrWPgM8jPKgKo ZYNjJeCNesZwyzi2bx96bBjOqUOTTlWhBT6lp/fEDzrlq0ifFrL0gfRriLISXIeWkeea PhqMc7Mgk3CT+qm/hbcBoj9YoaFtuOyw26szMr5QS8vSDIROS8D76NvrU2TjDOWbmqWn 0g0CzOvdPkkJlFf29WjCfuofnqqaN0pmSRFeD+8T9Pg2VG0rKrpqmRu/wV5IzMT7+F9U MjcOhkH5b9amo2LQdXTP4KU6jirr+/CWk0FFQAqDuqPvwYGY4LH1aRTPGv0jDDerymb9 2eRA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=RZ+UzF1ke9VKh6CSTY/ooI3vzWKiS8jZf7sDVSihHD4=; b=KLkaD9figqXuyM2G5/vhEdURwDkTtLgC5+w/hrkE/ZBSqbDHE2uzse2p/d+veCDT9V XhPW7Tjl5y//O9AFMsx7qrYuxPxRBADaYDOyzuMLZkKuFMJf5tMpdec+2ncvGtnSBVml 81SiarlDwmpBQvSs+lr8euZv3AqxKRo1ll7T/XX1temRSxU2pcIFRq1qh5q+LacKH4Uy AP6+28gZX0IspJHfjWXGx/6fkeSbDZt2UwGhuE156CS7BmjVAeqPqfidDhJnUIJSi4Vw iOQ0LFHRdoGZJf66MyB4VRh6S8JZ5sNXdi+xNqcEV2kMacmZ5g/GHiZkNrEIkmki5UCU AyyA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXQCaK+B1DnPYBcer4p4tb38MiW7EEGNEOLBdVw3IrN666cOIKn qK1qUxnwGEV6CB3U10S7Qc8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwjymOoEv8Ry2p1p8dCMolpdzxYn1+qfp4noIIgwqrM4twhYUXGvrTZzkbYodH1/ny+0fD11g== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9111:: with SMTP id 17mr5827628pfh.163.1579630277160; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:11:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:211:1:3e01:2939:5992:52da]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i11sm122167pjg.0.2020.01.21.10.11.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:11:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:11:13 -0800 From: Minchan Kim To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-mm , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, oleksandr@redhat.com, Suren Baghdasaryan , Tim Murray , Daniel Colascione , Sandeep Patil , Sonny Rao , Brian Geffon , Johannes Weiner , Shakeel Butt , John Dias , ktkhai@virtuozzo.com, christian.brauner@ubuntu.com, sjpark@amazon.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: introduce external memory hinting API Message-ID: <20200121181113.GE140922@google.com> References: <20200116235953.163318-1-minchan@kernel.org> <20200116235953.163318-3-minchan@kernel.org> <20200117115225.GV19428@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200117155837.bowyjpndfiym6cgs@box> <20200117173239.GB140922@google.com> <20200117212653.7uftw3lk35oykkmb@box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200117212653.7uftw3lk35oykkmb@box> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) 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, Jan 18, 2020 at 12:26:53AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 09:32:39AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 06:58:37PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:52:25PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Thu 16-01-20 15:59:50, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > > There is usecase that System Management Software(SMS) want to give > > > > > a memory hint like MADV_[COLD|PAGEEOUT] to other processes and > > > > > in the case of Android, it is the ActivityManagerService. > > > > > > > > > > It's similar in spirit to madvise(MADV_WONTNEED), but the information > > > > > required to make the reclaim decision is not known to the app. Instead, > > > > > it is known to the centralized userspace daemon(ActivityManagerService), > > > > > and that daemon must be able to initiate reclaim on its own without > > > > > any app involvement. > > > > > > > > > > To solve the issue, this patch introduces new syscall process_madvise(2). > > > > > It uses pidfd of an external processs to give the hint. > > > > > > > > > > int process_madvise(int pidfd, void *addr, size_t length, int advise, > > > > > unsigned long flag); > > > > > > > > > > Since it could affect other process's address range, only privileged > > > > > process(CAP_SYS_PTRACE) or something else(e.g., being the same UID) > > > > > gives it the right to ptrace the process could use it successfully. > > > > > The flag argument is reserved for future use if we need to extend the > > > > > API. > > > > > > > > > > I think supporting all hints madvise has/will supported/support to > > > > > process_madvise is rather risky. Because we are not sure all hints make > > > > > sense from external process and implementation for the hint may rely on > > > > > the caller being in the current context so it could be error-prone. > > > > > Thus, I just limited hints as MADV_[COLD|PAGEOUT] in this patch. > > > > > > > > > > If someone want to add other hints, we could hear hear the usecase and > > > > > review it for each hint. It's more safe for maintainace rather than > > > > > introducing a buggy syscall but hard to fix it later. > > > > > > > > I have brought this up when we discussed this in the past but there is > > > > no reflection on that here so let me bring that up again. > > > > > > > > I believe that the interface has an inherent problem that it is racy. > > > > The external entity needs to know the address space layout of the target > > > > process to do anyhing useful on it. The address space is however under > > > > the full control of the target process though and the external entity > > > > has no means to find out that the layout has changed. So > > > > time-to-check-time-to-act is an inherent problem. > > > > > > > > This is a serious design flaw and it should be explained why it doesn't > > > > matter or how to use the interface properly to prevent that problem. > > > > > > I agree, it looks flawed. > > > > > > Also I don't see what System Management Software can generically do on > > > sub-process level. I mean how can it decide which part of address space is > > > less important than other. > > > > > > I see how a manager can indicate that this process (or a group of > > > processes) is less important than other, but on per-addres-range basis? > > > > For example, memory ranges shared by several processes or critical for the > > latency, we could avoid those ranges to be cold/pageout to prevent > > unncecessary CPU burning/paging. > > Hmm.. I still don't see why any external entity has a better (or any) > knowledge about the matter. The process has to do this, no? I think Sandeep already gave enough information in other thread. > > > I also think people don't want to give an KSM hint to non-mergeable area. > > And how the manager knows which data is mergable? Oleksandr, could you say your thought why you need address range based API? > > If you are intimate enough with the process' internal state feel free to > inject syscall into the process with ptrace. Why bother with half-measures? Concern is we want to act the hint in caller's context, not calle because calle is usually very limited in cpuset/cgroups or even freezed state so they couldn't act by themselves quick enough, which makes many problems. One of efforts to solve the issue was "Expedited memory reclaim" https://lwn.net/Articles/785709/ That could be also a good candidate for process_madvise API.