On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 04:18:09PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:39:22PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > For the CRIU usecase, disabling THP for a while and re-enabling it
> > back will do the trick, provided VMAs flags are not affected, like
> > in the patch you've sent. Moreover, we may even get away with
>
> Are you going to check uname -r to know when the kABI changed in your
> favor (so CRIU cannot ever work with enterprise backports unless you
> expand the uname -r coverage), or how do you know the patch is
> applied?
CRIU does not rely on uname -r. We have code that checks what kernel
features we can actually use. For instance, we use UFFDIO_API to see if we
can do post-copy at all.
> Optimistically assuming people is going to run new CRIU code only on
> new kernels looks very risky, it would leads to silent random memory
> corruption, so I doubt you can get away without a uname -r check.
>
> This is fairly simple change too, its main cons is that it adds a
> branch to the page fault fast path, the old behavior of the prctl and
> the new madvise were both zero cost.
>
> Still if the prctl is preferred despite the added branch, to avoid
> uname -r clashes, to me it sounds better to add a new prctl ID and
> keep the old one too. The old one could be implemented the same way as
> the new one if you want to save a few bytes of .text. But the old one
> should probably do a printk_once to print a deprecation warning so the
> old ID with weaker (zero runtime cost) semantics can be removed later.
>