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;
Date:   Fri, 31 May 2019 23:11:43 +0900
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@google.com>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>, jannh@google.com,
        oleg@redhat.com, christian@brauner.io, oleksandr@redhat.com,
        hdanton@sina.com
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 5/6] mm: introduce external memory hinting API
Message-ID: <20190531141142.GA216592@google.com>
References: <20190531064313.193437-1-minchan@kernel.org>
 <20190531064313.193437-6-minchan@kernel.org>
 <20190531083757.GH6896@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190531131859.GB195463@google.com>
 <20190531140050.GS6896@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190531140050.GS6896@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 04:00:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 31-05-19 22:19:00, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:37:57AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 31-05-19 15:43:12, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > There is some usecase that centralized userspace daemon want to give
> > > > a memory hint like MADV_[COLD|PAGEEOUT] to other process. Android's
> > > > ActivityManagerService is one of them.
> > > > 
> > > > It's similar in spirit to madvise(MADV_WONTNEED), but the information
> > > > required to make the reclaim decision is not known to the app. Instead,
> > > > it is known to the centralized userspace daemon(ActivityManagerService),
> > > > and that daemon must be able to initiate reclaim on its own without
> > > > any app involvement.
> > > > 
> > > > To solve the issue, this patch introduces new syscall process_madvise(2).
> > > > It could give a hint to the exeternal process of pidfd.
> > > > 
> > > >  int process_madvise(int pidfd, void *addr, size_t length, int advise,
> > > > 			unsigned long cookie, unsigned long flag);
> > > > 
> > > > Since it could affect other process's address range, only privileged
> > > > process(CAP_SYS_PTRACE) or something else(e.g., being the same UID)
> > > > gives it the right to ptrace the process could use it successfully.
> > > > 
> > > > The syscall has a cookie argument to privode atomicity(i.e., detect
> > > > target process's address space change since monitor process has parsed
> > > > the address range of target process so the operaion could fail in case
> > > > of happening race). Although there is no interface to get a cookie
> > > > at this moment, it could be useful to consider it as argument to avoid
> > > > introducing another new syscall in future. It could support *atomicity*
> > > > for disruptive hint(e.g., MADV_DONTNEED|FREE).
> > > > flag argument is reserved for future use if we need to extend the API.
> > > 
> > > Providing an API that is incomplete will not fly. Really. As this really
> > > begs for much more discussion and it would be good to move on with the
> > > core idea of the pro active memory memory management from userspace
> > > usecase. Could you split out the core change so that we can move on and
> > > leave the external for a later discussion. I believe this would lead to
> > > a smoother integration.
> > 
> > No problem but I need to understand what you want a little bit more because
> > I thought this patchset is already step by step so if we reach the agreement
> > of part of them like [1-5/6], it could be merged first.
> > 
> > Could you say how you want to split the patchset for forward progress?
> 
> I would start with new madvise modes and once they are in a shape to be
> merged then we can start the remote madvise API. I believe that even
> local process reclaim modes are interesting and useful. I haven't heard
> anybody objecting to them without having a remote API so far.

Okay, let's focus on [1-3/6] at this moment.

> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs