[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a244d7f9-762e-6f26-a537-0524765c6815@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 11:01:09 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: pbonzini@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, gleb@...nel.org, mtosatti@...hat.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stefanha@...hat.com, yuhuang@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm, proc: Fix region lost in /proc/self/smaps
On 09/13/2016 03:10 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 12-09-16 08:01:06, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 09/12/2016 05:54 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> In order to fix this bug, we make 'file->version' indicate the end address
>>>>> of current VMA
>>> Doesn't this open doors to another weird cases. Say B would be partially
>>> unmapped (tail of the VMA would get unmapped and reused for a new VMA.
>>
>> In the end, this interface isn't about VMAs. It's about addresses, and
>> we need to make sure that the _addresses_ coming out of it are sane. In
>> the case that a VMA was partially unmapped, it doesn't make sense to
>> show the "new" VMA because we already had some output covering the
>> address of the "new" VMA from the old one.
>
> OK, that is a fair point and it speaks for caching the vm_end rather
> than vm_start+skip.
>
>>> I am not sure we provide any guarantee when there are more read
>>> syscalls. Hmm, even with a single read() we can get inconsistent results
>>> from different threads without any user space synchronization.
>>
>> Yeah, very true. But, I think we _can_ at least provide the following
>> guarantees (among others):
>> 1. addresses don't go backwards
>> 2. If there is something at a given vaddr during the entirety of the
>> life of the smaps walk, we will produce some output for it.
>
> I guess we also want
> 3. no overlaps with previously printed values (assuming two subsequent
> reads without seek).
>
> the patch tries to achieve the last part as well AFAICS but I guess this
> is incomplete because at least /proc/<pid>/smaps will report counters
> for the full vma range while the header (aka show_map_vma) will report
> shorter (non-overlapping) range. I haven't checked other files which use
> m_{start,next}
You are right. Will fix both /proc/PID/smaps and /proc/PID/maps in
the next version.
>
> Considering how this all can be tricky and how partial reads can be
> confusing and even misleading I am really wondering whether we
> should simply document that only full reads will provide a sensible
> results.
Make sense. Will document the guarantee in
Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
Thank you, Dave and Michal, for figuring out the right direction. :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists