[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9434ef94-15e8-889c-0c31-3e875060a2f7@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 19:43:14 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
brauner@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, aarcange@...hat.com,
hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com,
rppt@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
zhangpeng362@...wei.com, bgeffon@...gle.com,
kaleshsingh@...gle.com, ngeoffray@...gle.com, jdduke@...gle.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] userfaultfd: UFFDIO_REMAP uABI
On 02.10.23 17:55, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:46 PM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:21 PM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 10:00:03AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> In case we cannot simply remap the page, the fallback sequence (from the
>>>> cover letter) would be triggered.
>>>>
>>>> 1) UFFDIO_COPY
>>>> 2) MADV_DONTNEED
>>>>
>>>> So we would just handle the operation internally without a fallback.
>>>
>>> Note that I think there will be a slight difference on whole remap
>>> atomicity, on what happens if the page is modified after UFFDIO_COPY but
>>> before DONTNEED.
>>>
>>> UFFDIO_REMAP guarantees full atomicity when moving the page, IOW, threads
>>> can be updating the pages when ioctl(UFFDIO_REMAP), data won't get lost
>>> during movement, and it will generate a missing event after moved, with
>>> latest data showing up on dest.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that means such a fallback is a problem, Suren may know
>>> better with the use case.
>>
>> Although there is no problem in using fallback with our use case but
>> as a user of userfaultfd, I'd suggest leaving it to the developer.
>> Failing with appropriate errno makes more sense. If handled in the
>> kernel, then the user may assume at the end of the operation that the
>> src vma is completely unmapped. And if not correctness issues, it
>> could lead to memory leaks.
>
> I meant that in addition to the possibility of correctness issues due
> to lack of atomicity, it could also lead to memory leaks, as the user
> may assume that src vma is empty post-operation. IMHO, it's better to
> fail with errno so that the user would fix the code with necessary
> changes (like using DONTFORK, if forking).
Leaving the atomicity discussion out because I think this can just be
handled (e.g., the src_vma would always be empty post-operation):
It might not necessarily be a good idea to only expose micro-operations
to user space. If the user-space fallback will almost always be
"UFFDIO_COPY+MADV_DONTNEED", then clearly the logical operation
performed is moving data, ideally with zero-copy.
[as said as reply to Peter, one could still have magic flags for users
that really want to detect when zero-copy is impossible]
With a logical MOVE API users like compaction [as given in the cover
letter], not every such user has to eventually implement fallback paths.
But just my 2 cents, the UFFDIO_REMAP users probably can share what the
exact use cases are and if fallbacks are required at all or if no-KSM +
DONTFORK just does the trick.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists