Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFKYdfbG02vevRhWHhMhA4e_rRVNfCabcT0Pf_qNUgAnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 May 2020 12:55:30 -0700
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...hat.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>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com, sj38.park@...il.com,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/7] mm: support both pid and pidfd for process_madvise

On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 4:14 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 02:48:17PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 04:04:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 8 May 2020 11:36:53 -0700 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Per Vlastimil's request, I changed "which and advise" with "idtype and
> > > > advice" in function prototype of description.
> > > > Could you replace the part in the description? Code is never changed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Done, but...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > There is a demand[1] to support pid as well pidfd for process_madvise to
> > > > reduce unnecessary syscall to get pidfd if the user has control of the
> > > > target process(ie, they could guarantee the process is not gone or pid is
> > > > not reused).
> > > >
> > > > This patch aims for supporting both options like waitid(2).  So, the
> > > > syscall is currently,
> > > >
> > > >         int process_madvise(idtype_t idtype, id_t id, void *addr,
> > > >                 size_t length, int advice, unsigned long flags);
> > > >
> > > > @which is actually idtype_t for userspace libray and currently, it
> > > > supports P_PID and P_PIDFD.
> > >
> > > What does "@which is actually idtype_t for userspace libray" mean?  Can
> > > you clarify and expand?
> >
> > If I may clarify, the only case where we've supported both pidfd and pid
> > in the same system call is waitid() to avoid adding a dedicated system
> > call for waiting and because waitid() already had this (imho insane)
> > argument type switching. The idtype_t thing comes from waitid() and is
> > located int sys/wait.h and is defined as
> >
> > "The type idtype_t is defined as an enumeration type whose possible
> > values include at least the following:
> >
> > P_ALL
> > P_PID
> > P_PGID
> > "
> >
> > int waitid(idtype_t idtype, id_t id, siginfo_t *infop, int options);
> > If idtype is P_PID, waitid() shall wait for the child with a process ID equal to (pid_t)id.
> > If idtype is P_PGID, waitid() shall wait for any child with a process group ID equal to (pid_t)id.
> > If idtype is P_ALL, waitid() shall wait for any children and id is ignored.
> >
> > I'm personally not a fan of this idtype_t thing and think this should
> > just have been
> > > >         int pidfd_madvise(int pidfd, void *addr,
> > > >                 size_t length, int advice, unsigned long flags);
> > and call it a day.
>
> That was the argument at that time, Daniel and I didn't want to have
> pid along with pidfd even though Kirill strongly wanted to have it.
> However you said " Overall, I don't particularly care how or if you
> integrate pidfd here." at that time.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200113104256.5ujbplyec2sk4onn@wittgenstein/
>
> I asked a question to Kirll at that time.
>
> "
> > Sounds like that you want to support both options for every upcoming API
> > which deals with pid. I'm not sure how it's critical for process_madvise
> > API this case. In general, we sacrifice some performance for the nicer one
> > and later, once it's reported as hurdle for some workload, we could fix it
> > via introducing new flag. What I don't like at this moment is to make
> > syscall complicated with potential scenarios without real workload.
>
> Yes, I suggest allowing both options for every new process api
> "
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/9d849087-3359-c4ab-fbec-859e8186c509@virtuozzo.com/
>
> You didn't give the opinion at that time, either(I expected you will
> make some voice then). What I could do to proceed work was separate it
> as different patch like this one to get more attention in future.
> And now it works.
>
> Let me clarify my side: I still don't like to introduce pid for new API
> since we have pidfd. Since you just brought this issue again, I want to
> hear *opinions* from others, again.


IIRC Kirill's main complaint was that if we support only pidfds and
userspace has a pid of the process then it would have to convert that
pid into pidfd before calling process_madvise, which involves
additional syscall(s). The overhead would be more tangible if there
are multiple processes needing to be madvised.
I'm not sure how often such a need arises to madvise multiple
processes in a bulk like that and how critical is the overhead of
obtaining pidfd. With pid reuse possibility pid-based API will still
have the issue of possibly sending the request to a wrong process, so
this pidfd obtaining overhead arguably makes the usage more robust and
therefore is not a pure loss.

I don't have a real strong opinion against supporting pid in this
syscall but I think API maintainers should decide going forward
whether new APIs should support pid along with pidfd or switch to
pidfd only.
Thanks!

>
> >
> > Also, if I may ask, why is the flag argument "unsigned long"?
> > That's pretty unorthodox. The expectation is that flag arguments are
> > not word-size dependent and should usually use "unsigned int". All new
> > system calls follow this pattern too.
>
> Nothing special in this flag: Let me change it as "unsigned int".
> I will send the change once we have an agreement on "pidfd" argument.
>
> Thanks for the review, Christian!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists