Re: [RFC PATCH V1 0/6] mm: add a new option MREMAP_DUP to mmrep syscall

Marcelo Tosatti
2013-12-30T20:31:01Z

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 01:59:04PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
> CCed KVM guys.
>
> On 05/10/2013 01:11 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, wenchao <wenchaolinux@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 于 2013-5-9 22:13, Mel Gorman 写道:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 05:50:05PM +0800, wenchaolinux@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Wenchao Xia <wenchaolinux@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> This serial try to enable mremap syscall to cow some private memory
> >>>> region,
> >>>> just like what fork() did. As a result, user space application would got
> >>>> a
> >>>> mirror of those region, and it can be used as a snapshot for further
> >>>> processing.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What not just fork()? Even if the application was threaded it should be
> >>> managable to handle fork just for processing the private memory region
> >>> in question. I'm having trouble figuring out what sort of application
> >>> would require an interface like this.
> >>>
> >> It have some troubles: parent - child communication, sometimes
> >> page copy.
> >> I'd like to snapshot qemu guest's RAM, currently solution is:
> >> 1) fork()
> >> 2) pipe guest RAM data from child to parent.
> >> 3) parent write down the contents.
> >>
> >> To avoid complex communication for data control, and file content
> >> protecting, So let parent instead of child handling the data with
> >> a pipe, but this brings additional copy(). I think an explicit API
> >> cow mapping an memory region inside one process, could avoid it,
> >> and faster and cow less pages, also make user space code nicer.
> >
> > A new Linux-specific API is not portable and not available on existing
> > hosts. Since QEMU supports non-Linux host operating systems the
> > fork() approach is preferable.
> >
> > If you're worried about the memory copy - which should be benchmarked
> > - then vmsplice(2) can be used in the child process and splice(2) can
> > be used in the parent. It probably doesn't help though since QEMU
> > scans RAM pages to find all-zero pages before sending them over the
> > socket, and at that point the memory copy might not make much
> > difference.
> >
> > Perhaps other applications can use this new flag better, but for QEMU
> > I think fork()'s portability is more important than the convenience of
> > accessing the CoW pages in the same process.
>
> Yup, I agree with you that the new syscall sometimes is not a good solution.
>
> Currently, we're working on live-update[1] that will be enabled on Qemu firstly,
> this feature let the guest run on the new Qemu binary smoothly without
> restart, it's good for us to do security-update.
>
> In this case, we need to move the guest memory on old qemu instance to the
> new one, fork() can not help because we need to exec() a new instance, after
> that all memory mapping will be destroyed.
>
> We tried to enable SPLICE_F_MOVE[2] for vmsplice() to move the memory without
> memory-copy but the performance isn't so good as we expected: it's due to
> some limitations: the page-size, lock, message-size limitation on pipe, etc.
> Of course, we will continue to improve this, but wenchao's patch seems a new
> direction for us.
>
> To coordinate with your fork() approach, maybe we can introduce a new flag
> for VMA, something like: VM_KEEP_ONEXEC, to tell exec() to do not destroy
> this VMA. How about this or you guy have new idea? Really appreciate for your
> suggestion.
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=138597598700844&w=2
> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/25/285

Hi,

What is the purpose of snapshotting guest RAM here, in the context of
local migration?