Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:26:38 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
Cc:     corbet@lwn.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, wuyun.abel@bytedance.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [RFC] mm: add new syscall pidfd_set_mempolicy()
Message-ID: <Y0f17v1c3aAszlbk@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20221010094842.4123037-1-hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
 <Y0WEbCqJHjnqsg8n@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <582cf257-bc0d-c96e-e72e-9164cff4fce1@bytedance.com>
 <Y0aCiYMQ4liL2azT@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <a0421769-c2b9-d59a-0358-3cc84b2cb2bd@bytedance.com>
 <Y0avztF7QU8P/OoB@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <e825a27a-646b-9723-f774-947501c04ec2@bytedance.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e825a27a-646b-9723-f774-947501c04ec2@bytedance.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 13-10-22 18:44:55, Zhongkun He wrote:
> > On Wed 12-10-22 19:22:21, Zhongkun He wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, this will require some refactoring and one potential way is to make
> > > > mpol ref counting unconditional. The conditional ref. counting has
> > > > already caused issues in the past and the code is rather hard to follow
> > > > anyway. I am not really sure this optimization is worth it.
> > > > 
> > > > Another option would be to block the pidfd side of things on completion
> > > > which would wake it up from the task_work context but I would rather
> > > > explore the ref counting approach first and only if this is proven to be
> > > > too expensive to go with hacks like this.
> > > 
> > > Hi Michal
> > > 
> > > The counting approach means executing mpol_get/put() when start/finish using
> > > mempolicy,right?
> > 
> > We already do that via mpol_{get,put} but there are cases where the
> > reference counting is ignored because it cannot be freed and also mpol_cond_put
> > resp. open coded versions of mpol_needs_cond_ref.
> 
> Hi Michal
> 
> Could we try to change the MPOL_F_SHARED flag to MPOL_F_STATIC to
> mark static mempolicy which cannot be freed, and mpol_needs_cond_ref
> can use MPOL_F_STATIC to avoid freeing  the static mempolicy.

Wouldn't it make more sense to get rid of a different treatment and
treat all memory policies the same way?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs