lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 3/6] mm: Introduce VM_LOCKONFAULT
From
Date
On 08/25/2015 03:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 21-08-15 14:31:32, Eric B Munson wrote:
> [...]
>> I am in the middle of implementing lock on fault this way, but I cannot
>> see how we will hanlde mremap of a lock on fault region. Say we have
>> the following:
>>
>> addr = mmap(len, MAP_ANONYMOUS, ...);
>> mlock(addr, len, MLOCK_ONFAULT);
>> ...
>> mremap(addr, len, 2 * len, ...)
>>
>> There is no way for mremap to know that the area being remapped was lock
>> on fault so it will be locked and prefaulted by remap. How can we avoid
>> this without tracking per vma if it was locked with lock or lock on
>> fault?
>
> Yes mremap is a problem and it is very much similar to mmap(MAP_LOCKED).
> It doesn't guarantee the full mlock semantic because it leaves partially
> populated ranges behind without reporting any error.

Hm, that's right.

> Considering the current behavior I do not thing it would be terrible
> thing to do what Konstantin was suggesting and populate only the full
> ranges in a best effort mode (it is done so anyway) and document the
> behavior properly.
> "
> If the memory segment specified by old_address and old_size is
> locked (using mlock(2) or similar), then this lock is maintained
> when the segment is resized and/or relocated. As a consequence,
> the amount of memory locked by the process may change.
>
> If the range is already fully populated and the range is
> enlarged the new range is attempted to be fully populated
> as well to preserve the full mlock semantic but there is no
> guarantee this will succeed. Partially populated (e.g. created by
> mlock(MLOCK_ONFAULT)) ranges do not have the full mlock semantic
> so they are not populated on resize.
> "
>
> So what we have as a result is that partially populated ranges are
> preserved and fully populated ones work in the best effort mode the same
> way as they are now.
>
> Does that sound at least remotely reasonably?

I'll basically repeat what I said earlier:

- mremap scanning existing pte's to figure out the population would slow
it down for no good reason
- it would be unreliable anyway:
- example: was the area completely populated because MLOCK_ONFAULT
was not used or because the process faulted it already
- example: was the area not completely populated because
MLOCK_ONFAULT was used, or because mmap(MAP_LOCKED) failed to populate
it fully?

I think the first point is a pointless regression for workloads that use
just plain mlock() and don't want the onfault semantics. Unless there's
some shortcut? Does vma have a counter of how much is populated? (I
don't think so?)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-08-25 16:21    [W:1.951 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site