Message-ID: <20140319051543.GI14688@cmpxchg.org>
Date:	Wed, 19 Mar 2014 01:15:43 -0400
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, Jason Evans <je@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] mm: support madvise(MADV_FREE)

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 05:23:37PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:55:24AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On 03/13/2014 11:37 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >> > This patch is an attempt to support MADV_FREE for Linux.
> >> >
> >> > Rationale is following as.
> >> >
> >> > Allocators call munmap(2) when user call free(3) if ptr is
> >> > in mmaped area. But munmap isn't cheap because it have to clean up
> >> > all pte entries, unlinking a vma and returns free pages to buddy
> >> > so overhead would be increased linearly by mmaped area's size.
> >> > So they like madvise_dontneed rather than munmap.
> >> >
> >> > "dontneed" holds read-side lock of mmap_sem so other threads
> >> > of the process could go with concurrent page faults so it is
> >> > better than munmap if it's not lack of address space.
> >> > But the problem is that most of allocator reuses that address
> >> > space soonish so applications see page fault, page allocation,
> >> > page zeroing if allocator already called madvise_dontneed
> >> > on the address space.
> >> >
> >> > For avoidng that overheads, other OS have supported MADV_FREE.
> >> > The idea is just mark pages as lazyfree when madvise called
> >> > and purge them if memory pressure happens. Otherwise, VM doesn't
> >> > detach pages on the address space so application could use
> >> > that memory space without above overheads.
> >>
> >> I must be missing something.
> >>
> >> If the application issues MADV_FREE and then writes to the MADV_FREEd
> >> range, the kernel needs to know that the pages are no longer safe to
> >> lazily free.  This would presumably happen via a page fault on write.
> >> For that to happen reliably, the kernel has to write protect the pages
> >> when MADV_FREE is called, which in turn requires flushing the TLBs.
> >
> > It could be done by pte_dirty bit check. Of course, if some architectures
> > don't support it by H/W, pte_mkdirty would make it CoW as you said.
> 
> If the page already has dirty PTEs, then you need to clear the dirty
> bits and flush TLBs so that other CPUs notice that the PTEs are clean,
> I think.
> 
> Also, this has very odd semantics wrt reading the page after MADV_FREE
> -- is reading the page guaranteed to un-free it?

MADV_FREE simply invalidates content.  Sure, you can read at a given
address repeatedly after it.  You might see a different page every
time you do it, but it doesn't matter; the content is undefined.

It's no different than doing malloc() and looking at the memory before
writing anything in it.  After MADV_FREE, the memory is like a freshly
malloc'd chunk: the first access may result in page faults and the
content is undefined until you write it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists