[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4b1885b8-eb95-c50-2965-11e7c8efbf36@google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 18:30:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Peng Liang <liangpeng10@...wei.com>
cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
hughd@...gle.com, xiexiangyou@...wei.com, zhengchuan@...wei.com,
wanghao232@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] memfd: Support mapping to zero page on reading
On Wed, 22 Dec 2021, Peng Liang wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Recently we are working on implementing CRIU [1] for QEMU based on
> Steven's work [2]. It will use memfd to allocate guest memory in order
> to restore (inherit) it in the new QEMU process. However, memfd will
> allocate a new page for reading while anonymous memory will map to zero
> page for reading. For QEMU, memfd may cause that all memory are
> allocated during the migration because QEMU will read all pages in
> migration. It may lead to OOM if over-committed memory is enabled,
> which is usually enabled in public cloud.
>
> In this patch I try to add support mapping to zero pages on reading
> memfd. On reading, memfd will map to zero page instead of allocating a
> new page. Then COW it when a write occurs.
>
> For now it's just a demo for discussion. There are lots of work to do,
> e.g.:
> 1. don't support THP;
> 2. don't support shared reading and writing, only for inherit. For
> example:
> task1 | task2
> 1) read from addr |
> | 2) write to addr
> 3) read from addr again |
> then 3) will read 0 instead of the data task2 writed in 2).
>
> Would something similar be welcome in the Linux?
David has made good suggestions on better avoiding the need for
such a change, for the use case you have in mind.
And I don't care for the particular RFC patch that you posted.
But I have to say that use of ZERO_PAGE for shmem/memfd/tmpfs read-fault
might (potentially) be very welcome. Not as some MFD_ZEROPAGE special
case, but as how it would always work. Deleting the shmem_recalc_inode()
cruft, which is there to correct accounting for the unmodified read-only
pages, after page reclaim has got around to freeing them later.
It does require more work than you gave it in 1/1: mainly, as you call
out above, there's a need to note in the mapping's XArray when ZERO_PAGE
has been used at an offset, and do an rmap walk to unmap those ptes when
a writable page is substituted - see __xip_unmap() in Linux 3.19's
mm/filemap_xip.c for such an rmap walk.
Though when this came up before (in the "no-fault mmap" MAP_NOSIGBUS
thread last year - which then got forgotten), Linus was wary of that
unmapping, and it was dropped for a simple MAP_PRIVATE implementation.
And I've never scoped out what is needed to protect the page from
writing in all circumstances: in principle, it ought to be easy by
giving shmem_vm_ops a page_mkwrite; but that's likely to come with
a performance penalty, which may not be justified for this case.
I didn't check what you did for write protection: maybe what you
did was enough, but one has to be very careful about that.
Making this change to ZERO_PAGE has never quite justified the effort
so far: temporarily allocated pages have worked well enough in most
circumstances.
Hugh
>
> Thanks,
> Peng
>
> [1] https://criu.org/Checkpoint/Restore
> [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/qemu-devel/cover/1628286241-217457-1-git-send-email-steven.sistare@oracle.com/
>
> Peng Liang (1):
> memfd: Support mapping to zero page on reading memfd
>
> include/linux/fs.h | 2 ++
> include/uapi/linux/memfd.h | 1 +
> mm/memfd.c | 8 ++++++--
> mm/memory.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> mm/shmem.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 5 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.33.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists