Thread (35 messages) 35 messages, 6 authors, 2020-01-23

Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: introduce external memory hinting API

From: Minchan Kim <hidden>
Date: 2020-01-21 18:43:34
Also in: linux-mm, lkml

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 02:24:05PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 20-01-20 15:39:35, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:27:22PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
quoted
On Mon 20-01-20 13:24:35, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
[...]
quoted
quoted
quoted
Even two threads on common memory need a synchronization
to manage mappings in a sane way. Managing memory from two processes
is the same in principle, and the only difference is that another level
of synchronization is required.
Well, not really. The operation might simply attempt to perform an
operation on a specific memory area and get a failure if it doesn't
reference the same object anymore. What I think we need is some form of
a handle to operate on. In the past we have discussed several
directions. I was proposing /proc/self/map_anon/ (analogous to
map_files) where you could inspect anonymous memory and get a file
handle for it. madvise would then operate on the fd and then there
shouldn't be a real problem to revalidate that the object is still
valid. But there was no general enthusiasm about that approach. There
are likely some land mines on the way.
Converting anon memory to file-backed is bad idea and going to backfire.
I didn't mean to convert. I meant to expose that information via proc
the same way we do for file backed mappings. That shouldn't really
require to re-design the way how anonymous vma work IMO. But I haven't
tried that so there might be many gotchas there.

There are obvious things to think about though. Such fd cannot be sent
to other processes (SCM stuff), mmap of the file would have to be
disallowed and many others I am not aware of. I am not even pushing this
direction because I am not convinced about how viable it is myself. But
it would sound like a nice extension of the existing mechanism we have
and a file based madvise sounds attractive to me as well because we
already have that.
I am not a fan of fd based approach but I already reserved last argument
of the API as extendable field so we could use the field as "fd" when we
really need that kinds of fine-grained synchronization model if it's not
enough with SGISTOP, freezer and so.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help