Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 13:07:58 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@oracle.com>,
        "Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)" 
        <longpeng2@huawei.com>, Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>,
        Anthony Yznaga <anthony.yznaga@oracle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "Gonglei (Arei)" <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] madvise MADV_DOEXEC
Message-ID: <YRpVHnr55LpQQvTb@casper.infradead.org>
References: <1595869887-23307-1-git-send-email-anthony.yznaga@oracle.com>
 <cc714571-4461-c9e0-7b24-e213664caa54@huawei.com>
 <43471cbb-67c6-f189-ef12-0f8302e81b06@oracle.com>
 <a1dbf12e-9949-109e-122c-ba7ba609801b@huawei.com>
 <YOubKmDwxMIvdAed@casper.infradead.org>
 <a94973ab83ce48bd85c91397f82d7915@huawei.com>
 <55720e1b39cff0a0f882d8610e7906dc80ea0a01.camel@oracle.com>
 <db2b7337-4c6b-4e4b-71d3-dc4940353498@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <db2b7337-4c6b-4e4b-71d3-dc4940353498@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 10:02:22AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > Mappings within this address range behave as if they were shared
> > between threads, so a write to a MAP_PRIVATE mapping will create a
> > page which is shared between all the sharers. The first process that
> > declares an address range mshare'd can continue to map objects in the
> > shared area. All other processes that want mshare'd access to this
> > memory area can do so by calling mshare(). After this call, the
> > address range given by mshare becomes a shared range in its address
> > space. Anonymous mappings will be shared and not COWed.
> 
> Did I understand correctly that you want to share actual page tables between
> processes and consequently different MMs? That sounds like a very bad idea.

That is the entire point.  Consider a machine with 10,000 instances
of an application running (process model, not thread model).  If each
application wants to map 1TB of RAM using 2MB pages, that's 4MB of page
tables per process or 40GB of RAM for the whole machine.

There's a reason hugetlbfs was enhanced to allow this page table sharing.
I'm not a fan of the implementation as it gets some locks upside down,
so this is an attempt to generalise the concept beyond hugetlbfs.

Think of it like partial threading.  You get to share some parts, but not
all, of your address space with your fellow processes.  Obviously you
don't want to expose this to random other processes, only to other
instances of yourself being run as the same user.