[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <34f812b8-df54-eaad-5cf0-335f07da55c6@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 16:42:43 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...hat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
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>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com, sj38.park@...il.com,
SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 7/7] mm/madvise: allow KSM hints for remote API
On 3/9/20 4:19 PM, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 04:08:15PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Mon 09-03-20 14:11:17, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 05:08:18PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> [...]
>> > > Dunno, it's nice to react to signals quickly, for any proces that gets them, no?
>> >
>> > So, do you mean something like this?
>> >
>> > ===
>> > diff --git a/mm/ksm.c b/mm/ksm.c
>> > index 363ec8189561..b39c237cfcf4 100644
>> > --- a/mm/ksm.c
>> > +++ b/mm/ksm.c
>> > @@ -849,7 +849,8 @@ static int unmerge_ksm_pages(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> > for (addr = start; addr < end && !err; addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
>> > if (ksm_test_exit(vma->vm_mm))
>> > break;
>> > - if (signal_pending(current))
>> > + if (signal_pending(current) ||
>> > + signal_pending(rcu_dereference(vma->vm_mm->owner)))
>> > err = -ERESTARTSYS;
>> > else
>> > err = break_ksm(vma, addr);
>> > ===
>>
>> This is broken because mm might be attached to different tasks.
>> AFAIU this check is meant to allow quick backoff of the _calling_
>> process so that it doesn't waste time when the context is killed
>> already. I do not understand why should we care about any other context
>> here? What is the actual problem this would solve?
>
> I agree with you, but still trying to understand what does Vlastimil mean
> :).
Well you wondered if we should stop caring about current, and I said that
probably wouldn't be nice.
As for caring about the other task, patch 3/7 does that for
(MADV_COLD|MADV_PAGEOUT) so I just pointed out that the KSM case doesn't. AFAIU
if we don't check the signals, we might be blocking the killed task from exiting?
>>
>> --
>> Michal Hocko
>> SUSE Labs
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists