[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: running get_user_pages() from kernel thread
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Izik Eidus wrote:
>> Hugh Dickins wrote:
>>> Looks like Izik and I hit the same problem (otherwise running well):
> Ran well enough overnight (with mm/mmap.c vm_flags hack to be merging
> everything it could) that, to judge by your remarks below, I ought to
> switch away from investigating and fixing and reviewing, to sending
> you patches to bring us back in synch.

Take your time!,
The only things i want to change are this:
this silly break_cow() usage,
and move into usage of mm_count instead of mm_users (with some more
safety checks usage) - so when the process die we wont have to wait ksm
to find that it die and only then the physical memory will be released.
(I have a list of things i want to change in ksm, but really not for the
merging version)

> I don't think I have any problems with the madvise route, which weren't
> already problems with the /dev/ksm route: there are oddities I'm eager
> to look into (fork still raising questions for me), but nothing serious
> enough to get in the way of resynching.
> Andrea will be relieved to learn that I like mm_slot->touched very much:
> I don't know (and now don't need to know) what was serving that purpose
> in the /dev/ksm version.
>> Good, This solve another issue that you probably dont hit beacuse you work
>> with the madvise version:
>> the .release call back of the file_operations strcture will call to:
>> ksm_sma_release() that will call to remove_slot_from_hash_and_tree() that will
>> do the silly break_cow() call (even that the prcoesses just die!!!)
> Yes, I'd noticed before that break_cow() can be silly more work than
> necessary, may need care in ordering things. But, if it's still any
> issue, it's something that can be optimized later: you have a technique
> that goes about it safely, that's good.
>> Now beacuse that exit_mm() will set tsk->mm = NULL before the .release will
>> get called, we will trigger this path even without the kernel thread context.
>> (I prepred patch that just avoid the break_cow() from the .release context,
>> but it isnt needed with this patch)
>> (You shouldnt have that specific problem in the madvise() version beacuse we
>> dont have this .release callback anymore, but we still do there useless
>> break_cow() calls, considering the fact that the process just die, this
>> break_cow() calls should be made only when the user ask specifically to stop
>> merging pages i guess...,
> Yes, and I'm thinking that although it's fine for madvise(,,MADV_MERGEABLE)
> to be slow to get around to merging, probably madvise(,,MADV_UNMERGEABLE)
> needs to have broken COW on any KSM pages before the call returns. I've
> a suspicion that nobody will ever use MADV_UNMERGEABLE, outside of our
> testing; and yet it's against my principles not to provide it, and if it
> is used, then I think it needs to give that guarantee before returning.
> But again, something we can fill in once we're in synch.
>> I will send patch that will make it work more logical on top of your patches
>> as soon as you send something)
> Right, what would you like me to base against? What if you were to
> send me a rollup patch against 2.6.30 of what your tree has now? Or
> would you prefer to base against an mmotm? With or without your RFC
> patches, or something close to them?

Whatever is easier to you.

> Once I have your base, whichever way you prefer it, then I can put
> together a series of patches to adjust that to what I'm now working
> with (mainly: the ksm.c end of it would be much as in your RFC though
> with tidyups, and minus 4/4; whereas the madvise.c end of it I reworked).
> The patches we send to Andrew for mmotm, later on, would be something
> different, I believe (and something different from your git history):
> there I think we'd be asking him to remove the KSM patches he already
> has, and providing fresh equivalents based around the madvise interface
> (so, for example, I think there would be no patch at all to mm/rmap.c,
> all the changes made there earlier being later reverted).

Yes, I agree it will be easier to drop KSM and resend him once we have
everything ready.

> Hugh
Thanks Hugh!

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-16 23:29    [W:0.070 / U:1.376 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site