Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <478697aa-f55c-375a-6888-3abb343c6d9d@redhat.com>
 <CA+EESO5nvzka0KzFGzdGgiCWPLg7XD-8jA9=NTUOKFy-56orUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZShS3UT+cjJFmtEy@x1n> <205abf01-9699-ff1c-3e4e-621913ada64e@redhat.com>
 <ZSlragGjFEw9QS1Y@x1n> <12588295-2616-eb11-43d2-96a3c62bd181@redhat.com>
 <ZS2IjEP479WtVdMi@x1n> <8d187891-f131-4912-82d8-13112125b210@redhat.com>
 <ZS7ZqztMbhrG52JQ@x1n> <d40b8c86-6163-4529-ada4-d2b3c1065cba@redhat.com> <ZTGJHesvkV84c+l6@x1n>
In-Reply-To: <ZTGJHesvkV84c+l6@x1n>
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 13:02:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpEVgLtc3iS_huxbr86bNwEix+M4iEqWeQYUbsP6KcxfQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] userfaultfd: UFFDIO_MOVE uABI
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        brauner@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, aarcange@redhat.com,
        hughd@google.com, mhocko@suse.com, axelrasmussen@google.com,
        rppt@kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, Liam.Howlett@oracle.com,
        jannh@google.com, zhangpeng362@huawei.com, bgeffon@google.com,
        kaleshsingh@google.com, ngeoffray@google.com, jdduke@google.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@android.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 12:53=E2=80=AFPM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote=
:
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 05:41:01PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > That's not my main point. It can easily become a maintenance burden wit=
hout
> > any real use cases yet that we are willing to support.
>
> That's why I requested a few times that we can discuss the complexity of
> cross-mm support already here, and I'm all ears if I missed something on
> the "maintenance burden" part..
>
> I started by listing what I think might be different, and we can easily
> speedup single-mm with things like "if (ctx->mm !=3D mm)" checks with
> e.g. memcg, just like what this patch already did with pgtable deposition=
s.
>
> We keep saying "maintenance burden" but we refuse to discuss what is that=
..
>
> I'll leave that to Suren and Lokesh to decide.  For me the worst case is
> one more flag which might be confusing, which is not the end of the world=
..
> Suren, you may need to work more thoroughly to remove cross-mm implicatio=
ns
> if so, just like when renaming REMAP to MOVE.

Hi Folks,
Sorry, I'm just catching up on all the comments in this thread after a
week-long absence. Will be addressing other questions separately but
for cross-mm one, I think the best way forward would be for me to
split this patch into two with the second one adding cross-mm support.
That will clearly show how much additional code that requires and will
make it easier for us to decide whether to support it or not.
TBH, I don't see the need for an additional flag even if the initial
version will be merged without cross-mm support. Once it's added the
manpage can mention that starting with a specific Linux version
cross-mm is supported, no?
Also from my quick read, it sounds like we want to prevent movements
of pinned pages regardless of cross-mm support. Is my understanding
correct?
Thanks,
Suren.


>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>