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;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] madvise MADV_DOEXEC
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
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>
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>
 <YRpVHnr55LpQQvTb@casper.infradead.org>
 <ca2d4ea4-e875-475a-6094-1ac58bc0b544@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Message-ID: <e37df835-6a00-8e42-3907-c6305c42ea6d@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 14:42:24 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ca2d4ea4-e875-475a-6094-1ac58bc0b544@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 16.08.21 14:20, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 16.08.21 14:07, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> What speaks against 1 GB pages then?
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Who do we account the page tables to? What are MADV_DONTNEED semantics?
> Who cleans up the page tables? What happens during munmap? How does the
> rmap even work? How to we actually synchronize page table walkers?
> 
> See how hugetlbfs just doesn't raise these problems because we are
> sharing pages and not page tables?

I found what you were referring to: CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE

I was not aware that we have such a monstrosity in the kernel.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb