linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] introduce memory hinting API for external process

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:16:31 +0100
From:   SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        <oleksandr@...hat.com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...gle.com>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...gle.com>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, <sj38.park@...il.com>,
        <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] introduce memory hinting API for external process

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:01:23 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 17:44:26 -0800 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Now, we have MADV_PAGEOUT and MADV_COLD as madvise hinting API. With that,
> > application could give hints to kernel what memory range are preferred to be
> > reclaimed. However, in some platform(e.g., Android), the information
> > required to make the hinting decision is not known to the app.
> > Instead, it is known to a centralized userspace daemon(e.g., ActivityManagerService),
> > and that daemon must be able to initiate reclaim on its own without any app
> > involvement.
> > 
> 
> This patchset doesn't seem to be getting a lot of interest from other
> potential users?  It seems very specialized.  Are there or will there
> ever be any users of this apart from one Android daemon?
> 
> Also, it doesn't terribly hard for ActivityManagerService to tell
> another process "now run madvise with these arguments".  Please explain
> why this is not practical in ActivityManagerService and also within
> other potential users of this syscall.

I personally have interest in and hope successful development/merge of this
patchset.

The interested usecases of 'madvise_process()' for me is optimizations of
general memory-intensive workloads having dynamic data access patterns on
hierarchical memory systems (e.g., multi-tier memory or fast storage based swap
devices).  In more detail, I'm already using a part of this patchset for my RFC
patchset implementing Data Access Monitoring-based Operation Schemes[1].  For
my specific case, I don't need new system call but only target task argument,
though.

Once in a past, before joining my current company, I tried using 'madvise()' to
optimize some scientific HPC programs.  The improvement results were clear, but
optimizing each of the workloads was challenging and time-consuming.  I believe
this new systemcall to be very helpful for such cases, either.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200218085309.18346-1-sjpark@amazon.com/


Thanks,
SeongJae Park