From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
To: Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
"James E . J . Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/madvise: introduce PR_MADV_SELF flag to process_madvise()
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:12:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4740dfc7-71da-4eb4-b071-35116288571f@lucifer.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <u64scsk52b3ek4b7fh72tdylkf3qh537txcqhvozmaasrlug3r@eqsmstvs324c>
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 01:51:11PM GMT, Pedro Falcato wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 12:16:27PM GMT, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > process_madvise() was conceived as a useful means for performing a vector
> > of madvise() operations on a remote process's address space.
> >
> > However it's useful to be able to do so on the current process also. It is
> > currently rather clunky to do this (requiring a pidfd to be opened for the
> > current process) and introduces unnecessary overhead in incrementing
> > reference counts for the task and mm.
> >
> > Avoid all of this by providing a PR_MADV_SELF flag, which causes
> > process_madvise() to simply ignore the pidfd parameter and instead apply
> > the operation to the current process.
> >
>
> How about simply defining a pseudo-fd PIDFD_SELF in the negative int space?
> There's precedent for it in the fs space (AT_FDCWD). I think it's more ergonomic
> and if you take out the errno space we have around 2^31 - 4096 available sentinel
> values.
>
> e.g:
>
> /* AT_FDCWD = -10, -1 is dangerous, pick a different value */
> #define PIDFD_SELF -11
>
> int pidfd = target_pid == getpid() ? PIDFD_SELF : pidfd_open(...);
> process_madvise(pidfd, ...);
>
>
> What do you think?
I like the way you're thinking, but I don't think this is something we can
do in the context of this series.
I mean, I totally accept using a flag here and ignoring the pidfd field is
_ugly_, no question. But I'm trying to find the smallest change that
achieves what we want.
To add such a sentinel would be a change to the pidfd mechanism as a whole,
and we'd be left in the awkward situation that no other user of the pidfd
mechanism would be implementing this, but we'd have to expose this as a
general sentinel value for all pidfd users.
One nice thing with doing this as a flag is that, later, if somebody is
willing to do the larger task of having a special sentinel pidfd value to
mean 'the current process', we could use this in process_madvise() and
deprecate this flag :)
>
> --
> Pedro
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-24 13:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-24 11:16 [PATCH v2 0/2] unrestrict process_madvise() for current process Lorenzo Stoakes
2024-09-24 11:16 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/madvise: introduce PR_MADV_SELF flag to process_madvise() Lorenzo Stoakes
2024-09-24 12:51 ` Pedro Falcato
2024-09-24 13:12 ` Lorenzo Stoakes [this message]
2024-09-25 14:02 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-09-25 14:48 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2024-09-25 16:19 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-09-25 17:04 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2024-09-25 18:14 ` Pedro Falcato
2024-09-25 18:31 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2024-09-25 21:37 ` Shakeel Butt
2024-09-24 11:16 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests/mm: add test for process_madvise PR_MADV_SELF flag use Lorenzo Stoakes
2024-09-26 9:44 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] unrestrict process_madvise() for current process Lorenzo Stoakes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4740dfc7-71da-4eb4-b071-35116288571f@lucifer.local \
--to=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=chris@zankel.net \
--cc=deller@gmx.de \
--cc=ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru \
--cc=jcmvbkbc@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mattst88@gmail.com \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=pedro.falcato@gmail.com \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox