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;
Message-ID: <82c9c89c-aee2-08a3-e562-359631bb0137@bytedance.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2022 15:39:02 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.1
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2] mm: add new syscall
 pidfd_set_mempolicy().
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, corbet@lwn.net,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
References: <20221111084051.2121029-1-hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
 <20221111112732.30e1696bcd0d5b711c188a9a@linux-foundation.org>
 <a44f794e-fe60-e261-3631-9107822d5c36@bytedance.com>
 <Y3IqLzvduM6HqPJV@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <3a3b4f5b-14d1-27d8-7727-cf23da90988f@bytedance.com>
 <Y3KFFfMFE55lVdNZ@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y3KFFfMFE55lVdNZ@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

>>> We shouldn't really rely on mmap_sem for this IMO.
>>
>>   Yes, We should rely on mmap_sem for vma->vm_policy,but not for
>>   process context policy(task->mempolicy).
> 
> But the caller has no way to know which kind of policy is returned so
> the locking cannot be conditional on the policy type.

Yes. vma->vm_policy is protected by mmap_sem, which is reliable if
we want to add a new apis(pidfd_mbind()) to change the vma->vm_policy
specified in pidfd. but not for pidfd_set_mempolicy(task->mempolicy is
protected by alloc_lock).

> 
> Yes this is all understood but the level of the overhead is not really
> clear. So the question is whether this will induce a visible overhead.
OK,i will try it.

> Because from the maintainability point of view it is much less costly to
> have a clear life time model. Right now we have a mix of reference
> counting and per-task requirements which is rather subtle and easy to
> get wrong. In an ideal world we would have get_vma_policy always
> returning a reference counted policy or NULL. If we really need to
> optimize for cache line bouncing we can go with per cpu reference
> counters (something that was not available at the time the mempolicy
> code has been introduced).
> 
> So I am not saying that the task_work based solution is not possible I
> just think that this looks like a good opportunity to get from the
> existing subtle model.

OK, i got it. Thanks for your reply and suggestions.


Zhongkun.