linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [RFC] proc: Add a new isolated /proc/pid/mempolicy type.

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: <574f63b0-5d34-617b-2b9d-b3b282fafd9e@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:39:21 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@...edance.com>
Cc:     corbet@....net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        wuyun.abel@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [RFC] proc: Add a new isolated /proc/pid/mempolicy
 type.

Hi--

On 9/26/22 07:08, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 26-09-22 20:53:19, Zhongkun He wrote:
>>> [Cc linux-api - please do so for any patches making/updating
>>> kernel<->user interfaces]
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon 26-09-22 17:10:33, hezhongkun wrote:
>>>> From: Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@...edance.com>
>>>>
>>>> /proc/pid/mempolicy can be used to check and adjust the userspace task's
>>>> mempolicy dynamically.In many case, the application and the control plane
>>>> are two separate systems. When the application is created, it doesn't know
>>>> how to use memory, and it doesn't care. The control plane will decide the
>>>> memory usage policy based on different reasons.In that case, we can
>>>> dynamically adjust the mempolicy using /proc/pid/mempolicy interface.
>>>
>>> Is there any reason to make it procfs interface rather than pidfd one?
>>
>> Hi michal,  thanks for your reply.
>>
>> I just think that it is easy to display and adjust the mempolicy using
>> procfs. But it may not be suitable, I will send a pidfd_set_mempolicy patch
>> later.
> 
> proc interface has many usability issues. That is why pidfd has been
> introduced. So I would rather go with the pidfd interface than repeating
> old proc API mistakes.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the pidfd interface and I can't find any
documentation on it. Is there some?

Can I 'cat' or 'grep' in the pidfd interface?

>> Btw.in order to add per-thread-group mempolicy, is it possible to add
>> mempolicy in mm_struct?
> 
> I dunno. This would make the mempolicy interface even more confusing.
> Per mm behavior makes a lot of sense but we already do have per-thread
> semantic so I would stick to it rather than introducing a new semantic.
> 
> Why is this really important?

Thanks.

-- 
~Randy