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=-23.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 61C99C4338F for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 17:56:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8CB61078 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 17:56:15 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org CE8CB61078 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 37C106B0071; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 13:56:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 32A516B0072; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 13:56:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1CB748D0001; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 13:56:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0215.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.215]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F986B0071 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 13:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin08.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B00182BCC7E for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 17:56:14 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78441781068.08.18E4BA7 Received: from mail-lj1-f173.google.com (mail-lj1-f173.google.com [209.85.208.173]) by imf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75167B000C29 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 17:56:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-f173.google.com with SMTP id h11so8166169ljo.12 for ; Thu, 05 Aug 2021 10:56:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yqacVN1P35gjf+Hv6b4yKOzwapLRJIsHBIZJMQqhKzI=; b=hKkTa+B6NFN8bAZM9KyETBC57BuR4A6rz32sx2u47neH6jV7bZoa8HjAQkynyOIhBp unylhegz4jsLGJL/eQ7qtYPyT8L6kCl8uZaqXRYPCDanL5lvZAX/XjnnqUubwp4UaAb6 uiOpo2AuVwurU2o3yymg2/kvyuQkqEvTA5czQaKCXSWvc03QICxQdPogNd1EBQ4d4fxt xQVhwgkJKSEEAqsHzQKGl+xCSkGEhSNiqbv2KFZEOND2317WJHotNQKPvRQ1zLtfhgu6 C6q/fBNhU/NEV/3kgippxxx9Ux0iPhVkkfeESJLA0cxeVtcMfcbHkBs3iQMR0nUpUfDX 9J8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yqacVN1P35gjf+Hv6b4yKOzwapLRJIsHBIZJMQqhKzI=; b=HlaIQfhwrKyCuM8safMFEVB/F+yl/prMGdW+Mn2tnC4bwV7OjDrnxIoIplZnqIOi48 FPibplSM2AteRwp31ibleWgiQj+g2ds5zBOlIlpZ5vad3IUAGNNbEPFAjttXUTYdE/hD aq69lQeYBd+KnRc9Z79haNjkzqJJ+PiPR31/jMMPEV0+biXAEpQuK2KIOYneopGF2WxC bIlws6QEReu6ImJASaxH8IJYW/RiUcfHwjFdCJCZjAUdWaJ6fcp3mcJwKqlgcITGuKhP 2s607TED/KU35wJ/1wwnw2YKhD3Llhkvg2GnqO8pjzIO0EdCkrzAfgm6hdlV+HmGTTae 6uog== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532oRIBdDLPBK09dsvywIkdBrj037UXj2qS0PFoHZighfhz8I99s skmPhUZTbKXiTBFCHlIUOKgL65MDMjlBsmCCpWoSww== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwa9TTIIN2QHy2lLBZ+9YTDJN/1WYRoxhsokgthkOWzUbQxGjtgNf+tb1pKlVm+P/OQ08xKuObnRAPJPAcssF8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:906:: with SMTP id e6mr3820965ljq.160.1628186172759; Thu, 05 Aug 2021 10:56:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210805170859.2389276-1-surenb@google.com> <46998d10-d0ca-aeeb-8dcd-41b8130fb756@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: Shakeel Butt Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 10:56:01 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] mm: introduce process_mrelease system call To: Suren Baghdasaryan Cc: David Hildenbrand , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Michal Hocko , David Rientjes , Matthew Wilcox , Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim , Christian Brauner , Christoph Hellwig , Oleg Nesterov , Jann Horn , Andy Lutomirski , Christian Brauner , Florian Weimer , Jan Engelhardt , Tim Murray , Linux API , linux-mm , LKML , kernel-team Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Authentication-Results: imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=hKkTa+B6; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf19.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeelb@google.com designates 209.85.208.173 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeelb@google.com X-Stat-Signature: umpoumos9ncyfgsi5tpu6ybaimuwtwyk X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 75167B000C29 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-HE-Tag: 1628186174-917792 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 Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 10:50 AM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 10:29 AM David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > On 05.08.21 19:08, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > In modern systems it's not unusual to have a system component monitoring > > > memory conditions of the system and tasked with keeping system memory > > > pressure under control. One way to accomplish that is to kill > > > non-essential processes to free up memory for more important ones. > > > Examples of this are Facebook's OOM killer daemon called oomd and > > > Android's low memory killer daemon called lmkd. > > > For such system component it's important to be able to free memory > > > quickly and efficiently. Unfortunately the time process takes to free > > > up its memory after receiving a SIGKILL might vary based on the state > > > of the process (uninterruptible sleep), size and OPP level of the core > > > the process is running. A mechanism to free resources of the target > > > process in a more predictable way would improve system's ability to > > > control its memory pressure. > > > Introduce process_mrelease system call that releases memory of a dying > > > process from the context of the caller. This way the memory is freed in > > > a more controllable way with CPU affinity and priority of the caller. > > > The workload of freeing the memory will also be charged to the caller. > > > The operation is allowed only on a dying process. > > > > > > After previous discussions [1, 2, 3] the decision was made [4] to introduce > > > a dedicated system call to cover this use case. > > > > > > The API is as follows, > > > > > > int process_mrelease(int pidfd, unsigned int flags); > > > > > > DESCRIPTION > > > The process_mrelease() system call is used to free the memory of > > > an exiting process. > > > > > > The pidfd selects the process referred to by the PID file > > > descriptor. > > > (See pidfd_open(2) for further information) > > > > > > The flags argument is reserved for future use; currently, this > > > argument must be specified as 0. > > > > > > RETURN VALUE > > > On success, process_mrelease() returns 0. On error, -1 is > > > returned and errno is set to indicate the error. > > > > > > ERRORS > > > EBADF pidfd is not a valid PID file descriptor. > > > > > > EAGAIN Failed to release part of the address space. > > > > > > EINTR The call was interrupted by a signal; see signal(7). > > > > > > EINVAL flags is not 0. > > > > > > EINVAL The memory of the task cannot be released because the > > > process is not exiting, the address space is shared > > > with another live process or there is a core dump in > > > progress. > > > > > > ENOSYS This system call is not supported, for example, without > > > MMU support built into Linux. > > > > > > ESRCH The target process does not exist (i.e., it has terminated > > > and been waited on). > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190411014353.113252-3-surenb@google.com/ > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-api/20201113173448.1863419-1-surenb@google.com/ > > > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-api/20201124053943.1684874-3-surenb@google.com/ > > > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-api/20201223075712.GA4719@lst.de/ > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan > > > --- > > > changes in v7: > > > - Fixed pidfd_open misspelling, per Andrew Morton > > > - Fixed wrong task pinning after find_lock_task_mm() issue, per Michal Hocko > > > - Moved MMF_OOM_SKIP check before task_will_free_mem(), per Michal Hocko > > > > > > mm/oom_kill.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > > > index c729a4c4a1ac..a4d917b43c73 100644 > > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > > > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ > > > #include > > > #include > > > #include > > > +#include > > > #include > > > #include > > > #include > > > @@ -1141,3 +1142,75 @@ void pagefault_out_of_memory(void) > > > out_of_memory(&oc); > > > mutex_unlock(&oom_lock); > > > } > > > + > > > +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(process_mrelease, int, pidfd, unsigned int, flags) > > > +{ > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MMU > > > + struct mm_struct *mm = NULL; > > > + struct task_struct *task; > > > + struct task_struct *p; > > > + unsigned int f_flags; > > > + struct pid *pid; > > > + long ret = 0; > > > + > > > + if (flags) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + pid = pidfd_get_pid(pidfd, &f_flags); > > > + if (IS_ERR(pid)) > > > + return PTR_ERR(pid); > > > + > > > + task = get_pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID); > > > + if (!task) { > > > + ret = -ESRCH; > > > + goto put_pid; > > > + } > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * If the task is dying and in the process of releasing its memory > > > + * then get its mm. > > > + */ > > > + p = find_lock_task_mm(task); > > > + if (!p) { > > > + ret = -ESRCH; > > > + goto put_pid; > > > + } > > > + if (task != p) { > > > + get_task_struct(p); > > > > > > Wouldn't we want to obtain the mm from p ? I thought that was the whole > > exercise of going via find_lock_task_mm(). > > Yes, that's what we do after checking task_will_free_mem(). > task_will_free_mem() requires us to hold task_lock and > find_lock_task_mm() achieves that ensuring that mm is still valid, but > it might return a task other than the original one. That's why we do > this dance with pinning the new task and unpinning the original one. > The same dance is performed in __oom_kill_process(). I was > contemplating adding a parameter to find_lock_task_mm() to request > this unpin/pin be done within that function but then decided to keep > it simple for now. > Did I address your question or did I misunderstand it? > One question I have is why mmget() and not mmgrab()? I see mmgrab() in oom_kill.c.