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 15:40:56 +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: <YRp4+EmohNoxzv2x@casper.infradead.org>
References: <55720e1b39cff0a0f882d8610e7906dc80ea0a01.camel@oracle.com>
 <db2b7337-4c6b-4e4b-71d3-dc4940353498@redhat.com>
 <YRpVHnr55LpQQvTb@casper.infradead.org>
 <ca2d4ea4-e875-475a-6094-1ac58bc0b544@redhat.com>
 <YRpeHnP7QDNJRA8Y@casper.infradead.org>
 <88884f55-4991-11a9-d330-5d1ed9d5e688@redhat.com>
 <YRpo4EAJSkY7hI7Q@casper.infradead.org>
 <40bad572-501d-e4cf-80e3-9a8daa98dc7e@redhat.com>
 <YRp169xvwB3j0rpD@casper.infradead.org>
 <3ce1f52f-d84d-49ba-c027-058266e16d81@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3ce1f52f-d84d-49ba-c027-058266e16d81@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 04:33:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > I did not follow why we have to play games with MAP_PRIVATE, and having
> > > private anonymous pages shared between processes that don't COW, introducing
> > > new syscalls etc.
> > 
> > It's not about SHMEM, it's about file-backed pages on regular
> > filesystems.  I don't want to have XFS, ext4 and btrfs all with their
> > own implementations of ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE.
> 
> Let me ask this way: why do we have to play such games with MAP_PRIVATE?

Are you referring to this?

: 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.

If so, that's a misunderstanding, because there are no games being played.
What Khalid's saying there is that because the page tables are already
shared for that range of address space, the COW of a MAP_PRIVATE will
create a new page, but that page will be shared between all the sharers.
The second write to a MAP_PRIVATE page (by any of the sharers) will not
create a COW situation.  Just like if all the sharers were threads of
the same process.