linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 12/14] mm: multi-gen LRU: debugfs interface

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]

Message-Id: <20220426143034.f520c062830f9e3405c890d0@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:30:34 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...hwell.id.au>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Michael Larabel <Michael@...haellarabel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Page Reclaim v2 <page-reclaim@...gle.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
        Jan Alexander Steffens <heftig@...hlinux.org>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Steven Barrett <steven@...uorix.net>,
        Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Byrne <djbyrne@....edu>,
        Donald Carr <d@...os-reins.com>,
        Holger Hoffstätte 
        <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>,
        Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel@...dex.ru>,
        Shuang Zhai <szhai2@...rochester.edu>,
        Sofia Trinh <sofia.trinh@....works>,
        Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 12/14] mm: multi-gen LRU: debugfs interface

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:59:37 -0600 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 10:20 PM Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 18:03:16 -0600 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Presumably sysfs is the place.  Fully documented and with usage
> > > > examples in the changelog so we can carefully review the proposed
> > > > extensions to Linux's ABI.  Extensions which must be maintained
> > > > unchanged for all time.
> > >
> > > Eventually, yes. There still is a long way to go. Rest assured, this
> > > is something Google will keep investing resources on.
> >
> > So.  The plan is to put these interfaces in debugfs for now, with a
> > view to migrating stabilized interfaces into sysfs (or procfs or
> > whatever) once end-user requirements and use cases are better
> > understood?
> 
> The requirements are well understood and the use cases are proven,
> e.g., Google [1], Meta [2] and Alibaba [3].
> 
> [1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3297858.3304053
> [2] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3503222.3507731
> [3] https://gitee.com/anolis/cloud-kernel/blob/release-5.10/mm/kidled.c

So will these interfaces be moved into sysfs?

> > If so, that sounds totally great to me.  But it should have been in
> > the darn changelog!  This is the sort of thing which we care about most
> > keenly.
> >
> > It would be helpful for reviewers to understand the proposed timeline
> > for this process, because the entire feature isn't really real until
> > this is completed, is it?  I do think we should get this nailed down
> > relatively rapidly, otherwise people will be reluctant to invest much
> > into a moving target.
> >
> > And I must say, I see dissonance between the overall maturity of the
> > feature as described in these emails versus the immaturity of these
> > userspace control interfaces.  What's happening there?
> 
> Very observant. To answer both of the questions above: each iteration
> of the entire stack is a multi-year effort.
> 
> Given its ROI, companies I know of constantly pour money into this
> area. Given its scale, this debugfs is the least of their concerns. A
> good example is the proactive reclaim sysfs interface [4]. It's been
> used at Google for many years and at Meta for a few years. We only
> started finalizing it recently.
> 
> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220425190040.2475377-1-yosryahmed@google.com/

Sure, if one organization is involved in both the userspace code and
the kernel interfaces then the alteration of kernel interfaces can be
handled in a coordinated fashion.

But releasing interfaces to the whole world is a different deal.  It's
acceptable to say "this is in debugfs for now because it's a work
in progress" but it sounds like mglru's interfaces are beyond that
stage?