linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v11 3/8] mm/damon: Implement data access monitoring-based operation schemes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1f2ce1c6-2a09-667d-2bee-40215b421989@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jun 2020 16:07:00 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>,
        Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, aarcange@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, amit@...nel.org,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, brendan.d.gregg@...il.com,
        brendanhiggins@...gle.com, cai@....pw, colin.king@...onical.com,
        corbet@....net, dwmw@...zon.com, foersleo@...zon.de,
        irogers@...gle.com, jolsa@...hat.com, kirill@...temov.name,
        mark.rutland@....com, mgorman@...e.de, minchan@...nel.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, namhyung@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        rdunlap@...radead.org, riel@...riel.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, sblbir@...zon.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        shuah@...nel.org, sj38.park@...il.com, snu@...zon.de,
        vbabka@...e.cz, vdavydov.dev@...il.com, yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com,
        ying.huang@...el.com, linux-damon@...zon.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v11 3/8] mm/damon: Implement data access monitoring-based
 operation schemes

On 09.06.20 11:17, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:47:45 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 09.06.20 08:53, SeongJae Park wrote:
>>> From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>
>>>
>>> In many cases, users might use DAMON for simple data access aware
>>> memory management optimizations such as applying an operation scheme to
>>> a memory region of a specific size having a specific access frequency
>>> for a specific time.  For example, "page out a memory region larger than
>>> 100 MiB but having a low access frequency more than 10 minutes", or "Use
>>> THP for a memory region larger than 2 MiB having a high access frequency
>>> for more than 2 seconds".
>>>
>>> To minimize users from spending their time for implementation of such
>>> simple data access monitoring-based operation schemes, this commit makes
>>> DAMON to handle such schemes directly.  With this commit, users can
>>> simply specify their desired schemes to DAMON.
>>
>> What would be the alternative? How would a solution where these policies
>> are handled by user space (or inside an application?) look like?
> 
> Most simple form of the altermative solution would be doing offline data access
> pattern profiling using DAMON and modifying the application source code or
> system configuration based on the profiling results.
> 
> More automated alternative solution would be a daemon constructed with two
> modules:
> 
>  - monitor: monitors the data access pattern of the workload via the DAMON
>    debugfs interface
>  - memory manager: based on the monitoring result, make appropriate memory
>    management changes via mlock(), madvise(), sysctl, etc.
> 
> The daemon would be able to run inside the application process as a thread, or
> outside as a standalone process.  If the daemon could not run inside the
> application process, the memory management changes it could make would be
> further limited, though, as mlock() and madvise() would not be available.  The
> madvise_process(), which is already merged in the next tree, would be helpful
> in this case.
> 
>>>
>>> Each of the schemes is composed with conditions for filtering of the
>>> target memory regions and desired memory management action for the
>>> target.  Specifically, the format is::
>>>
>>>     <min/max size> <min/max access frequency> <min/max age> <action>
>>>
>>> The filtering conditions are size of memory region, number of accesses
>>> to the region monitored by DAMON, and the age of the region.  The age of
>>> region is incremented periodically but reset when its addresses or
>>> access frequency has significantly changed or the action of a scheme was
>>> applied.  For the action, current implementation supports only a few of
>>> madvise() hints, ``MADV_WILLNEED``, ``MADV_COLD``, ``MADV_PAGEOUT``,
>>> ``MADV_HUGEPAGE``, and ``MADV_NOHUGEPAGE``.
>>
>> I am missing some important information. Is this specified for *all*
>> user space processes? Or how is this configured? What are examples?
>>
>> E.g., messing with ``MADV_HUGEPAGE`` vs. ``MADV_NOHUGEPAGE`` of random
>> applications can change the behavior/break these applications. (e.g., if
>> userfaultfd is getting used and the applciation explicitly sets
>> MADV_NOHUGEPAGE).
> 
> Only monitoring target processes will be applied.  The monitoring target
> processes can be specified by writing the process ids to 'pids' debugfs file or
> constructing the 'struct damon_ctx' via the programming interface.
> 
> I will refine the commit message to make the points clearer, in the next spin.

Understood, so a process configures damon to only modify its mappings.
thanks for clarifying! This makes exposing the do_madvise() look less
dangerous.


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb