[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] RFC - ksm api change into madvise
    Hugh Dickins wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 May 2009, Izik Eidus wrote:
    >> This is comment request for ksm api changes.
    >> The following patchs move the api to use madvise instead of ioctls.
    > Thanks a lot for doing this.
    > I'm afraid more than three weeks have gone past, and the 2.6.31
    > merge window is almost upon us, and you haven't even got a comment
    > out of me: I apologize for that.
    > Although my (lack of) response is indistinguishable from a conspiracy
    > to keep KSM out of the kernel, I beg to assure you that's not the case.
    > I do want KSM to go in - though I never shared Andrew's optimism that it
    > is 2.6.31 material: I've too long a list of notes/doubts on the existing
    > implementation, which I've not had time to expand upon to you; but I
    > don't think there are any killer issues, we should be able to work
    > things out as 2.6.31 goes through its -rcs, and aim for 2.6.32.
    > But let's get this change of interface sorted out first.


    > I remain convinced that it's right to go the madvise() route,
    > though I don't necessarily like the details in your patches.
    > And I've come to the conclusion that the only way I can force
    > myself to contribute constructively, is to start from these
    > patches, and shift things around until it's as I think it
    > should be, then see what you think of the result.

    Sound perfect way to go.

    > I notice that you chose to integrate fully (though not fully enough)
    > with vmas, adding a VM_MERGEABLE flag. Fine, that's probably going
    > to be safest in the end, and I'll follow you; but it is further than
    > I was necessarily asking you to go - it might have been okay to use
    > the madvise() interface, but just to declare areas of address space
    > (not necessarily backed by mappings) to ksm.c, as you did via /dev/ksm.
    > But it's fairly likely that if you had stayed with that, it would have
    > proved problematic later, so let's go forward with the full integration
    > with vmas.
    >> Before i will describe the patchs, i want to note that i rewrote this
    >> patch seires alot of times, all the other methods that i have tried had some
    >> fandumatel issues with them.
    >> The current implemantion does have some issues with it, but i belive they are
    >> all solveable and better than the other ways to do it.
    >> If you feel you have better way how to do it, please tell me :).
    >> Ok when we changed ksm to use madvise instead of ioctls we wanted to keep
    >> the following rules:
    >> Not to increase the host memory usage if ksm is not being used (even when it
    >> is compiled), this mean not to add fields into mm_struct / vm_area_struct...
    >> Not to effect the system performence with notifiers that will have to block
    >> while ksm code is running under some lock - ksm is helper, it should do it
    >> work quitely, - this why i dropped patch that i did that add mmu notifiers
    >> support inside ksm.c and recived notifications from the MM (for example
    >> when vma is destroyed (invalidate_range...)
    >> Not to change the MM logic.
    >> Trying to touch as less code as we can outisde ksm.c
    > These are well-intentioned goals, and thank you for making the effort
    > to follow them; but I'm probably going to depart from them. I'd
    > rather we put in what's necessary and appropriate, and then cut
    > that down if necessary.

    That the way to go, i just didnt want to scare anyone (it was obiouse to
    me that it is needed, just wanted you to say it is needed)

    >> Taking into account all this rules, the end result that we have came with is:
    >> mmlist is now not used only by swapoff, but by ksm as well, this mean that
    >> each time you call to madvise for to set vma as MERGEABLE, madvise will check
    >> if the mm_struct is inside the mmlist and will insert it in case it isnt.
    >> It is belived that it is better to hurt little bit the performence of swapoff
    >> than adding another list into the mm_struct.
    > That was a perfectly sensible thing for you to do, given your rules
    > above; but I don't really like the result, and think it'll be clearer
    > to have your own list. Whether by mm or by vma, I've not yet decided:
    > by mm won't add enough #idef CONFIG_KSM bloat to worry about; by vma,
    > we might be able to reuse some prio_tree fields, I've not checked yet.
    >> One issue that should be note is: after mm_struct is going into the mmlist, it
    >> wont be kicked from it until the procsses is die (even if there are no more
    >> VM_MERGEABLE vmas), this doesnt mean memory is wasted, but it does mean ksm
    >> will spend little more time in doing cur = cur->next if(...).
    >> Another issue is: when procsess is die, ksm will have to find (when scanning)
    >> that its mm_users == 1 and then do mmput(), this mean that there might be dealy
    >> from the time that someone do kill until the mm is really free -
    >> i am open for suggestions on how to improve this...
    > You've resisted putting in the callbacks you need. I think they were
    > always (i.e. even when using /dev/ksm) necessary, but should become
    > more obvious now we have this tighter integration with mm's vmas.
    > You seem to have no callback in fork: doesn't that mean that KSM
    > pages get into mms of which mm/ksm.c has no knowledge?
    What you mean by this?, should the vma flags be copyed into the child
    and therefore ksm will scan the vma?
    (only thing i have to check is: maybe the process itself wont go into
    the mmlist, and therefore ksm wont know about it)

    > You had
    > no callback in mremap move: doesn't that mean that KSM pages could
    > be moved into areas which mm/ksm.c never tracked? Though that's
    > probably no issue now we move over to vmas: they should now travel
    > with their VM flag. You have no callback in unmap: doesn't that
    > mean that KSM never knows when its pages have gone away?

    Yes, Adding all this callbacks would make ksm much more happy, Again, i
    didnt want to scare anyone...

    > (Closing the /dev/ksm fd used to clean up some of this, in the
    > end; but the lifetime of the fd can be so different from that of
    > the mapped area, I've felt very unsafe with that technique - a good
    > technique when you're trying to sneak in special handling for your
    > special driver, but not a good technique once you go to mainline.)
    > I haven't worked out the full consequences of these lost pages:
    > perhaps it's no worse than that you could never properly enforce
    > your ksm_thread_max_kernel_pages quota.

    You mean the shared pages outside the stable tree comment?

    >> (when someone do echo 0 > /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/run ksm will throw away all the
    >> memory, so condtion when the memory wont ever be free wont happen)
    >> Another important thing is: this is request for comment, i still not sure few
    >> things that we have made here are totaly safe:
    >> (the mmlist sync with drain_mmlist, and the handle_vmas() function in madvise,
    >> the logic inside ksm for searching the next virtual address on the vmas,
    >> and so on...)
    >> The main purpuse of this is to ask if the new interface is what you guys
    >> want..., and if you like the impelmantion desgin.
    > It's in the right direction. But it would be silly for me to start
    > criticizing your details now: I need to try doing the same, that will
    > force me to think deeply enough about it, and I may then be led to
    > the same decisions as you made.
    >> (I have added option to scan closed support applications as well)
    > That's a nice detail that I'll find very useful for testing,
    > but we might want to hold it back longer than the rest. I just get
    > naturally more cautious when we consider interfaces for doing things
    > to other processes, and want to spend even longer over it.
    >> Thanks.
    >> Izik Eidus (4):
    >> madvice: add MADV_SHAREABLE and MADV_UNSHAREABLE calls.
    > I didn't understand why you went over to VM_MERGEABLE but stuck
    > with MADV_SHAREABLE: there's a confusing mix of shareables and
    > mergeables, I'll head for mergeables throughout, though keep to "KSM".
    >> mmlist: share mmlist with ksm.
    >> ksm: change ksm api to use madvise instead of ioctls.
    >> ksm: add support for scanning procsses that were not modifided to use
    >> ksm
    > While I'm being communicative, let me mention two things,
    > not related to this RFC patchset, but to what's currently in mmotm.
    > I've a bugfix patch to scan_get_next_index(), I'll send that to you


    > in a few moments.
    > And a question on your page_wrprotect() addition to mm/rmap.c: though
    > it may contain some important checks (I'm thinking of the get_user_pages
    > protection), isn't it essentially redundant, and should be removed from
    > the patchset? If we have a private page which is mapped into more than
    > the one address space by which we arrive at it, then, quite independent
    > of KSM, it needs to be write-protected already to prevent mods in one
    > address space leaking into another - doesn't it? So I see no need for
    > the rmap'ped write-protection there, just make the checks and write
    > protect the pte you have in ksm.c. Or am I missing something?

    Ok, so we have here 2 cases for ksm:
    When the page is anonymous and is mapped readonly beteween serveal
    for this you say we shouldnt walk over the rmap and try to
    writeprotect what is already writeprtected...

    When the page is anonymous and is mapped write by just one process:
    for this you say it is better to handle it directly from inside
    ksm beacuse we already know
    the virtual address mapping of this page?

    so about this: you are right about the fact that we might dont
    have to walk over the rmap of the page for pages with mapcount 1
    but isnt it cleaner to deal it inside rmap.c?
    another thing, get_user_pages() protection is needed even in
    that case, beacuse get_user_pages_fast is lockless, so odirect
    can run under our legs after we write protecting the page.

    anyway, nothing critical, i dont mind to move
    page_write_protect_one() into ksm.c, i still think get_user_pages
    protection is needed.

    Thanks alot for your time.
    > Hugh

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-06-08 19:21    [W:0.037 / U:6.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site