Re: [PATCH RESEND V5,2/2] mm: shmem: implement POSIX_FADV_[WILL|DONT]NEED for shmem

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 12:08:21 +0530 Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@quicinc.com> wrote:

> From: Charan Teja Reddy <quic_charante@quicinc.com>
> 
> Currently fadvise(2) is supported only for the files that doesn't
> associated with noop_backing_dev_info thus for the files, like shmem,
> fadvise results into NOP. But then there is file_operations->fadvise()
> that lets the file systems to implement their own fadvise
> implementation. Use this support to implement some of the POSIX_FADV_XXX
> functionality for shmem files.
> 
> This patch aims to implement POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED and POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED
> advices to shmem files which can be helpful for the drivers who may want
> to manage the shmem pages of the files that are created through
> shmem_file_setup[_with_mnt]().  An example usecase may be like, driver
> can create the shmem file of the size equal to its requirements and
> map the pages for DMA and then pass the fd to user. The user who knows
> well about the usage of these pages can now decide when these pages are
> not required push them to swap through DONTNEED thus free up memory well
> in advance rather than relying on the reclaim and use WILLNEED when it
> decide that they are useful in the near future. IOW, it lets the clients
> to free up/read the memory when it wants to.

Is there an actual userspace/driver combination which will use this? 
Has the new feature been tested in such an arrangement?  And if so,
which driver(s)?

> Another usecase is that GEM
> objects which are currently allocated and managed through shmem files
> can use vfs_fadvise(DONT|WILLNEED) on shmem fd when the driver comes to
> know(like through some hints from user space) that GEM objects are not
> going to use/will need in the near future.

Again, is this just a theoretical bright idea, or can we be assured
that adding this code to the kernel will end up having been useful to
our users?

> Some questions asked while reviewing this patch:
> 
> Q) Can the same thing be achieved with FD mapped to user and use
> madvise?
> A) All drivers are not mapping all the shmem fd's to user space and want
> to manage them with in the kernel. Ex: shmem memory can be mapped to the
> other subsystems and they fill in the data and then give it to other
> subsystem for further processing, where, the user mapping is not at all
> required.  A simple example, memory that is given for gpu subsystem
> which can be filled directly and give to display subsystem. And the
> respective drivers know well about when to keep that memory in ram or
> swap based on may be a user activity.
> 
> Q) Should we add the documentation section in Manual pages?
> A) The man[1] pages for the fadvise() whatever says is also applicable
> for shmem files. so couldn't feel it correct to add specific to shmem
> files separately.
> [1] https://linux.die.net/man/2/fadvise
> 
> Q) The proposed semantics of POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED is actually similar to
> MADV_PAGEOUT and different from MADV_DONTNEED. This is a user facing API
> and this difference will cause confusion?
> A) man pages [1] says that "POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED attempts to free cached
> pages associated with the specified region." This means on issuing this
> FADV, it is expected to free the file cache pages. And it is
> implementation defined If the dirty pages may be attempted to writeback.
> And the unwritten dirty pages will not be freed. So, FADV_DONTNEED also
> covers the semantics of MADV_PAGEOUT for file pages and there is no
> purpose of PAGEOUT for file pages.