Thread (20 messages) 20 messages, 7 authors, 2015-07-24

Re: [PATCH V4 4/6] mm: mlock: Introduce VM_LOCKONFAULT and add mlock flags to enable it

From: Vlastimil Babka <hidden>
Date: 2015-07-22 10:03:39
Also in: dri-devel, linux-alpha, linux-api, linux-arch, linux-mm, linuxppc-dev, lkml, sparclinux

On 07/21/2015 09:59 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
The cost of faulting in all memory to be locked can be very high when
working with large mappings.  If only portions of the mapping will be
used this can incur a high penalty for locking.

For the example of a large file, this is the usage pattern for a large
statical language model (probably applies to other statical or graphical
models as well).  For the security example, any application transacting
in data that cannot be swapped out (credit card data, medical records,
etc).

This patch introduces the ability to request that pages are not
pre-faulted, but are placed on the unevictable LRU when they are finally
faulted in.  This can be done area at a time via the
mlock2(MLOCK_ONFAULT) or the mlockall(MCL_ONFAULT) system calls.  These
calls can be undone via munlock2(MLOCK_ONFAULT) or
munlockall2(MCL_ONFAULT).

Applying the VM_LOCKONFAULT flag to a mapping with pages that are
already present required the addition of a function in gup.c to pin all
pages which are present in an address range.  It borrows heavily from
__mm_populate().

To keep accounting checks out of the page fault path, users are billed
for the entire mapping lock as if MLOCK_LOCKED was used.
Hi,

I think you should include a complete description of which transitions 
for vma states and mlock2/munlock2 flags applied on them are valid and 
what they do. It will also help with the manpages.
You explained some to Jon in the last thread, but I think there should 
be a canonical description in changelog (if not also Documentation, if 
mlock is covered there).

For example the scenario Jon asked, what happens after a 
mlock2(MLOCK_ONFAULT) followed by mlock2(MLOCK_LOCKED), and that the 
answer is "nothing". Your promised code comment for apply_vma_flags() 
doesn't suffice IMHO (and I'm not sure it's there, anyway?).

But the more I think about the scenario and your new VM_LOCKONFAULT vma 
flag, it seems awkward to me. Why should munlocking at all care if the 
vma was mlocked with MLOCK_LOCKED or MLOCK_ONFAULT? In either case the 
result is that all pages currently populated are munlocked. So the flags 
for munlock2 should be unnecessary.

I also think VM_LOCKONFAULT is unnecessary. VM_LOCKED should be enough - 
see how you had to handle the new flag in all places that had to handle 
the old flag? I think the information whether mlock was supposed to 
fault the whole vma is obsolete at the moment mlock returns. VM_LOCKED 
should be enough for both modes, and the flag to mlock2 could just 
control whether the pre-faulting is done.

So what should be IMHO enough:
- munlock can stay without flags
- mlock2 has only one new flag MLOCK_ONFAULT. If specified, pre-faulting 
is not done, just set VM_LOCKED and mlock pages already present.
- same with mmap(MAP_LOCKONFAULT) (need to define what happens when both 
MAP_LOCKED and MAP_LOCKONFAULT are specified).

Now mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) muddles the situation in that it stores the 
information for future VMA's in current->mm->def_flags, and this 
def_flags would need to distinguish VM_LOCKED with population and 
without. But that could be still solvable without introducing a new vma 
flag everywhere.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help