Message-ID: <20190317114238.ab6tvvovpkpozld5@brauner.io>
Date:   Sun, 17 Mar 2019 12:42:40 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
        luto@...capital.net, serge@...lyn.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] simple_lmk: Introduce Simple Low Memory Killer for Android

On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 09:53:06PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 12:37:18PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:57 AM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:00:10AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 10:31 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:49 AM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 07:24:28PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > > > [..]
> > > > > > > > why do we want to add a new syscall (pidfd_wait) though? Why not just use
> > > > > > > > standard poll/epoll interface on the proc fd like Daniel was suggesting.
> > > > > > > > AFAIK, once the proc file is opened, the struct pid is essentially pinned
> > > > > > > > even though the proc number may be reused. Then the caller can just poll.
> > > > > > > > We can add a waitqueue to struct pid, and wake up any waiters on process
> > > > > > > > death (A quick look shows task_struct can be mapped to its struct pid) and
> > > > > > > > also possibly optimize it using Steve's TIF flag idea. No new syscall is
> > > > > > > > needed then, let me know if I missed something?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Huh, I thought that Daniel was against the poll/epoll solution?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm, going through earlier threads, I believe so now. Here was Daniel's
> > > > > > reasoning about avoiding a notification about process death through proc
> > > > > > directory fd: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1811.0/00232.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > May be a dedicated syscall for this would be cleaner after all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, I wish I've seen that discussion before...
> > > > > syscall makes sense and it can be non-blocking and we can use
> > > > > select/poll/epoll if we use eventfd.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for taking a look.
> > > >
> > > > > I would strongly advocate for
> > > > > non-blocking version or at least to have a non-blocking option.
> > > >
> > > > Waiting for FD readiness is *already* blocking or non-blocking
> > > > according to the caller's desire --- users can pass options they want
> > > > to poll(2) or whatever. There's no need for any kind of special
> > > > configuration knob or non-blocking option. We already *have* a
> > > > non-blocking option that works universally for everything.
> > > >
> > > > As I mentioned in the linked thread, waiting for process exit should
> > > > work just like waiting for bytes to appear on a pipe. Process exit
> > > > status is just another blob of bytes that a process might receive. A
> > > > process exit handle ought to be just another information source. The
> > > > reason the unix process API is so awful is that for whatever reason
> > > > the original designers treated processes as some kind of special kind
> > > > of resource instead of fitting them into the otherwise general-purpose
> > > > unix data-handling API. Let's not repeat that mistake.
> > > >
> > > > > Something like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > evfd = eventfd(0, EFD_NONBLOCK | EFD_CLOEXEC);
> > > > > // register eventfd to receive death notification
> > > > > pidfd_wait(pid_to_kill, evfd);
> > > > > // kill the process
> > > > > pidfd_send_signal(pid_to_kill, ...)
> > > > > // tend to other things
> > > >
> > > > Now you've lost me. pidfd_wait should return a *new* FD, not wire up
> > > > an eventfd.
> > > >
> > 
> > Ok, I probably misunderstood your post linked by Joel. I though your
> > original proposal was based on being able to poll a file under
> > /proc/pid and then you changed your mind to have a separate syscall
> > which I assumed would be a blocking one to wait for process exit.
> > Maybe you can describe the new interface you are thinking about in
> > terms of userspace usage like I did above? Several lines of code would
> > explain more than paragraphs of text.
> 
> Hey, Thanks Suren for the eventfd idea. I agree with Daniel on this. The idea
> from Daniel here is to wait for process death and exit events by just
> referring to a stable fd, independent of whatever is going on in /proc.
> 
> What is needed is something like this (in highly pseudo-code form):
> 
> pidfd = opendir("/proc/<pid>",..);
> wait_fd = pidfd_wait(pidfd);
> read or poll wait_fd (non-blocking or blocking whichever)
> 
> wait_fd will block until the task has either died or reaped. In both these
> cases, it can return a suitable string such as "dead" or "reaped" although an
> integer with some predefined meaning is also Ok.
> 
> What that guarantees is, even if the task's PID has been reused, or the task
> has already died or already died + reaped, all of these events cannot race
> with the code above and the information passed to the user is race-free and
> stable / guaranteed.
> 
> An eventfd seems to not fit well, because AFAICS passing the raw PID to
> eventfd as in your example would still race since the PID could have been
> reused by another process by the time the eventfd is created.
> 
> Also Andy's idea in [1] seems to use poll flags to communicate various tihngs
> which is still not as explicit about the PID's status so that's a poor API
> choice compared to the explicit syscall.
> 
> I am planning to work on a prototype patch based on Daniel's idea and post something
> soon (chatted with Daniel about it and will reference him in the posting as
> well), during this posting I will also summarize all the previous discussions
> and come up with some tests as well.  I hope to have something soon.

Having pidfd_wait() return another fd will make the syscall harder to
swallow for a lot of people I reckon.
What exactly prevents us from making the pidfd itself readable/pollable
for the exit staus? They are "special" fds anyway. I would really like
to avoid polluting the api with multiple different types of fds if possible.

ret = pidfd_wait(pidfd);
read or poll pidfd
(Note that I'm traveling so my responses might be delayed quite a bit.)
(Ccing a few people that might have an opinion here.)

Christian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists