Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190521110552.GG219653@google.com> <20190521113029.76iopljdicymghvq@brauner.io>
 <20190521113911.2rypoh7uniuri2bj@brauner.io> <CAKOZuesjDcD3EM4PS7aO7yTa3KZ=FEzMP63MR0aEph4iW1NCYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHrFyr6iuoZ-r6e57zp1rz7b=Ee0Vko+syuUKW2an+TkAEz_iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKOZueupb10vmm-bmL0j_b__qsC9ZrzhzHgpGhwPVUrfX0X-Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190522145216.jkimuudoxi6pder2@brauner.io> <CAKOZueu837QGDAGat-tdA9J1qtKaeuQ5rg0tDyEjyvd_hjVc6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190522154823.hu77qbjho5weado5@brauner.io> <CAKOZuev97fTvmXhEkjb7_RfDvjki4UoPw+QnVOsSAg0RB8RyMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190522160108.l5i7t4lkfy3tyx3z@brauner.io>
In-Reply-To: <20190522160108.l5i7t4lkfy3tyx3z@brauner.io>
From:   Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 May 2019 09:01:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOZuevR2WTbeFdvpx8K9jJj0Sc=wpNJKr24ePWsvE_WS5wgNw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] introduce memory hinting API for external process
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc:     Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@google.com>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:01 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 08:57:47AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:48 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 08:17:23AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:52 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
> > > > > I'm not going to go into yet another long argument. I prefer pidfd_*.
> > > >
> > > > Ok. We're each allowed our opinion.
> > > >
> > > > > It's tied to the api, transparent for userspace, and disambiguates it
> > > > > from process_vm_{read,write}v that both take a pid_t.
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of process_vm_readv and process_vm_writev: both have a
> > > > currently-unused flags argument. Both should grow a flag that tells
> > > > them to interpret the pid argument as a pidfd. Or do you support
> > > > adding pidfd_vm_readv and pidfd_vm_writev system calls? If not, why
> > > > should process_madvise be called pidfd_madvise while process_vm_readv
> > > > isn't called pidfd_vm_readv?
> > >
> > > Actually, you should then do the same with process_madvise() and give it
> > > a flag for that too if that's not too crazy.
> >
> > I don't know what you mean. My gut feeling is that for the sake of
> > consistency, process_madvise, process_vm_readv, and process_vm_writev
> > should all accept a first argument interpreted as either a numeric PID
> > or a pidfd depending on a flag --- ideally the same flag. Is that what
> > you have in mind?
>
> Yes. For the sake of consistency they should probably all default to
> interpret as pid and if say PROCESS_{VM_}PIDFD is passed as flag
> interpret as pidfd.

Sounds good to me!