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: <c1f3c78d-b1eb-5c1c-83aa-35901800498f@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:48:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] Add support for sharing page tables across
 processes (Previously mshare)
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Rongwei Wang <rongwei.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org,
        "xuyu@linux.alibaba.com" <xuyu@linux.alibaba.com>
References: <cover.1682453344.git.khalid.aziz@oracle.com>
 <74fe50d9-9be9-cc97-e550-3ca30aebfd13@linux.alibaba.com>
 <ZMeoHoM8j/ric0Bh@casper.infradead.org>
 <ae3bbfba-4207-ec5b-b4dd-ea63cb52883d@redhat.com>
 <9faea1cf-d3da-47ff-eb41-adc5bd73e5ca@linux.alibaba.com>
 <d3d03475-7977-fc55-188d-7df350ee0f29@redhat.com>
 <ZMfjmhaqVZyZNNMW@casper.infradead.org>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <ZMfjmhaqVZyZNNMW@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 31.07.23 18:38, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 06:30:22PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Assume we do do the page table sharing at mmap time, if the flags are right.
>> Let's focus on the most common:
>>
>> mmap(memfd, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED)
>>
>> And doing the same in each and every process.
> 
> That may be the most common in your usage, but for a database, you're
> looking at two usage scenarios.  Postgres calls mmap() on the database
> file itself so that all processes share the kernel page cache.
> Some Commercial Databases call mmap() on a hugetlbfs file so that all
> processes share the same userspace buffer cache.  Other Commecial
> Databases call shmget() / shmat() with SHM_HUGETLB for the exact
> same reason.

I remember you said that postgres might be looking into using shmem as 
well, maybe I am wrong.

memfd/hugetlb/shmem could all be handled alike, just "arbitrary 
filesystems" would require more work.

> 
> This is why I proposed mshare().  Anyone can use it for anything.
> We have such a diverse set of users who want to do stuff with shared
> page tables that we should not be tying it to memfd or any other
> filesystem.  Not to mention that it's more flexible; you can map
> individual 4kB files into it and still get page table sharing.

That's not what the current proposal does, or am I wrong?

Also, I'm curious, is that a real requirement in the database world?

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb