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;
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: <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>
 <YRp4+EmohNoxzv2x@casper.infradead.org>
 <e6a31927-8f93-22af-2d5a-9d80578e9317@redhat.com>
 <YRqLc2W1P77tiSqj@casper.infradead.org>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] madvise MADV_DOEXEC
Message-ID: <97ed86a0-9fac-3dbc-0f9e-d669484c9485@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 18:13:20 +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: <YRqLc2W1P77tiSqj@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 16.08.21 17:59, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 05:01:44PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 16.08.21 16:40, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> : 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.
>>>
>>
>> It actually seems to be just like I understood it. We'll have multiple
>> processes share anonymous pages writable, even though they are not using
>> shared memory.
>>
>> IMHO, sharing page tables to optimize for something kernel-internal (page
>> table consumption) should be completely transparent to user space. Just like
>> ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE currently is unless I am missing something
>> important.
>>
>> The VM_MAYSHARE check in want_pmd_share()->vma_shareable() makes me assume
>> that we really only optimize for MAP_SHARED right now, never for
>> MAP_PRIVATE.
> 
> It's definitely *not* about being transparent to userspace.  It's about
> giving userspace new functionality where multiple processes can choose
> to share a portion of their address space with each other.  What any
> process changes in that range changes, every sharing process sees.
> mmap(), munmap(), mprotect(), mremap(), everything.

Oh okay, so it's actually much more complicated and complex than I 
thought. Thanks for clarifying that! I recall virtiofsd had similar 
requirements for sharing memory with the QEMU main process, I might be 
wrong.

"existing shared memory area" and your initial page table example made 
me assume that we are simply dealing with sharing page tables of MAP_SHARED.

It's actually something like a VMA container that you share between 
processes. And whatever VMAs are currently inside that VMA container is 
mirrored to other processes. I assume sharing page tables could actually 
be an implementation detail, especially when keeping MAP_PRIVATE 
(confusing in that context!) and other features that will give you 
surprises (uffd) out of the picture.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb