From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>,
Suren Baghdasarya <surenb@google.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] mm/madvise: support process_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 11:24:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ce823c8-cfbf-cc59-9fc7-9aa3a79740c3@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210926161259.238054-1-namit@vmware.com>
On 26.09.21 18:12, Nadav Amit wrote:
> From: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
>
> The goal of these patches is to add support for
> process_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED). Yet, in the process some (arguably)
> useful cleanups, a bug fix and performance enhancements are performed.
>
> The patches try to consolidate the logic across different behaviors, and
> to a certain extent overlap/conflict with an outstanding patch that does
> something similar [1]. This consolidation however is mostly orthogonal
> to the aforementioned one and done in order to clarify what is done in
> respect to locks and TLB for each behavior and to batch these operations
> more efficiently on process_madvise().
>
> process_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) is useful for two reasons: (a) it allows
> userfaultfd monitors to unmap memory from monitored processes; and (b)
> it is more efficient than madvise() since it is vectored and batches TLB
> flushes more aggressively.
MADV_DONTNEED on MAP_PRIVATE memory is a target-visible operation; this
is very different to all the other process_madvise() calls we allow,
which are merely hints, but the target cannot be broken . I don't think
this is acceptable.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-27 9:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-26 16:12 Nadav Amit
2021-09-26 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 1/8] mm/madvise: propagate vma->vm_end changes Nadav Amit
2021-09-27 9:08 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-09-27 10:11 ` Nadav Amit
2021-09-27 11:55 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-09-27 12:33 ` Nadav Amit
2021-09-27 12:45 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-09-27 12:59 ` Nadav Amit
2021-09-26 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 2/8] mm/madvise: remove unnecessary check on madvise_dontneed_free() Nadav Amit
2021-09-27 9:11 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-09-27 11:05 ` Nadav Amit
2021-09-27 12:19 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-09-27 12:52 ` Nadav Amit
2021-09-26 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 3/8] mm/madvise: remove unnecessary checks on madvise_free_single_vma() Nadav Amit
2021-09-27 9:17 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-09-27 9:24 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-09-26 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 4/8] mm/madvise: define madvise behavior in a struct Nadav Amit
2021-09-27 9:31 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-09-27 10:31 ` Nadav Amit
2021-09-27 12:14 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-09-27 20:36 ` Nadav Amit
2021-09-26 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 5/8] mm/madvise: perform certain operations once on process_madvise() Nadav Amit
2021-09-26 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 6/8] mm/madvise: more aggressive TLB batching Nadav Amit
2021-09-26 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 7/8] mm/madvise: deduplicate code in madvise_dontneed_free() Nadav Amit
2021-09-26 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH 8/8] mm/madvise: process_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) Nadav Amit
2021-09-27 9:24 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2021-09-27 10:41 ` [RFC PATCH 0/8] mm/madvise: support process_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) Nadav Amit
2021-09-27 10:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 12:00 ` Nadav Amit
2021-09-27 12:16 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-27 19:12 ` Nadav Amit
2021-09-29 7:52 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-29 18:31 ` Nadav Amit
2021-10-12 23:14 ` Peter Xu
2021-10-13 15:47 ` Nadav Amit
2021-10-13 23:09 ` Peter Xu
2021-09-27 17:05 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-27 19:59 ` Nadav Amit
2021-09-28 8:53 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-28 22:56 ` Nadav Amit
2021-10-04 17:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-10-07 16:19 ` Nadav Amit
2021-10-07 16:46 ` David Hildenbrand
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=7ce823c8-cfbf-cc59-9fc7-9aa3a79740c3@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ccross@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
/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