[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180228061103.GA8608@outlook.office365.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 22:11:04 -0800
From: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...tuozzo.com>
To: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, criu@...nvz.org, gdb@...rceware.org,
devel@...ts.open-mpi.org, rr-dev@...illa.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] vm: add a syscall to map a process memory into a
pipe
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:18:18AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:02:25PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> > On 02/21/2018 03:44 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 08:30:49 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> This patches introduces new process_vmsplice system call that combines
> > >> functionality of process_vm_read and vmsplice.
> > >
> > > All seems fairly strightforward. The big question is: do we know that
> > > people will actually use this, and get sufficient value from it to
> > > justify its addition?
> >
> > Yes, that's what bothers us a lot too :) I've tried to start with finding out if anyone
> > used the sys_read/write_process_vm() calls, but failed :( Does anybody know how popular
> > these syscalls are?
>
> Well, process_vm_readv itself is quite popular, it's used by debuggers nowadays,
> see e.g.
> $ strace -qq -esignal=none -eprocess_vm_readv strace -qq -o/dev/null cat /dev/null
For this case, there is no advantage from process_vmsplice().
But it can significantly optimize a process of generating a core file.
In this case, we need to read a process memory and save content into a
file. process_vmsplice() allows to do this more optimal than
process_vm_readv(), because it doesn't copy data into a userspace.
Here is a part of strace how gdb saves memory content into a core file:
10593 open("/proc/10193/mem", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 17
10593 pread64(17, "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"..., 1048576, 140009356111872) = 1048576
10593 close(17) = 0
10593 write(16, "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"..., 4096) = 4096
10593 write(16, "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"..., 1044480) = 1044480
10593 open("/proc/10193/mem", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 17
10593 pread64(17, "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"..., 1048576, 140009357160448) = 1048576
10593 close(17) = 0
10593 write(16, "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"..., 4096) = 4096
10593 write(16, "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"..., 1044480) = 1044480
10593 open("/proc/10193/mem", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 17
10593 pread64(17, "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"..., 1048576, 140009358209024) = 1048576
10593 close(17) = 0
10593 write(16, "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"..., 4096) = 4096
10593 write(16, "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"..., 1044480) = 1044480
10593 open("/proc/10193/mem", O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 17
10593 pread64(17, "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"..., 1048576, 140009359257600) = 1048576
10593 close(17)
It is strange that process_vm_readv() isn't used and that
/proc/10193/mem is opened many times.
BTW: "strace -fo strace-gdb.log gdb -p PID" doesn't work properly.
Thanks,
Andrei
>
>
> --
> ldv
Powered by blists - more mailing lists