lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC v1 2/4] kernel/fork.c: implement new process_mmput_async syscall
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 13:20:11 -0600
ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:

> Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>
> > The goal of this new syscall is to be able to asynchronously free the
> > mm of a dying process. This is especially useful for processes that use
> > huge amounts of memory (e.g. databases or KVM guests). The process is
> > allowed to terminate immediately, while its mm is cleaned/reclaimed
> > asynchronously.
> >
> > A separate process needs use the process_mmput_async syscall to attach
> > itself to the mm of a running target process. The process will then
> > sleep until the last user of the target mm has gone.
> >
> > When the last user of the mm has gone, instead of synchronously free
> > the mm, the attached process is awoken. The syscall will then continue
> > and clean up the target mm.
> >
> > This solution has the advantage that the cleanup of the target mm can
> > happen both be asynchronous and properly accounted for (e.g. cgroups).
> >
> > Tested on s390x.
> >
> > A separate patch will actually wire up the syscall.
>
> I am a bit confused.
>
> You want the process report that it has finished immediately,
> and you want the cleanup work to continue on in the background.
>
> Why do you need a separate process?
>
> Why not just modify the process cleanup code to keep the task_struct
> running while allowing waitpid to reap the process (aka allowing
> release_task to run)? All tasks can be already be reaped after
> exit_notify in do_exit.
>
> I can see some reasons for wanting an opt-in. It is nice to know all of
> a processes resources have been freed when waitpid succeeds.
>
> Still I don't see why this whole thing isn't exit_mm returning
> the mm_sturct when a flag is set, and then having an exit_mm_late
> being called and passed the returned mm after exit_notify.

nevermind, exit_notify is done after cgroup_exit, the teardown would
then not be accounted properly

>
> Or maybe something with schedule_work or task_work, instead of an
> exit_mm_late. I don't see any practical difference.
>
> I really don't see why this needs a whole other process to connect to
> the process you care about asynchronously.
>
> This whole thing seems an exercise in spending lots of resources to free
> resources much later.
>
> Eric

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-12 10:36    [W:0.165 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site