Re: [RESEND PATCH V2 0/3] Allow user to request memory to be locked on page fault

[Eric B Munson <emunson@akamai.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2978 bytes --]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> On 06/15/2015 04:43 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> >>Note that the semantic of MAP_LOCKED can be subtly surprising:
> >>
> >>"mlock(2) fails if the memory range cannot get populated to guarantee
> >>that no future major faults will happen on the range.
> >>mmap(MAP_LOCKED) on the other hand silently succeeds even if the
> >>range was populated only
> >>partially."
> >>
> >>( from http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143152790412727&w=2 )
> >>
> >>So MAP_LOCKED can silently behave like MAP_LOCKONFAULT. While
> >>MAP_LOCKONFAULT doesn't suffer from such problem, I wonder if that's
> >>sufficient reason not to extend mmap by new mlock() flags that can
> >>be instead applied to the VMA after mmapping, using the proposed
> >>mlock2() with flags. So I think instead we could deprecate
> >>MAP_LOCKED more prominently. I doubt the overhead of calling the
> >>extra syscall matters here?
> >
> >We could talk about retiring the MAP_LOCKED flag but I suspect that
> >would get significantly more pushback than adding a new mmap flag.
> 
> Oh no we can't "retire" as in remove the flag, ever. Just not
> continue the way of mmap() flags related to mlock().
> 
> >Likely that the overhead does not matter in most cases, but presumably
> >there are cases where it does (as we have a MAP_LOCKED flag today).
> >Even with the proposed new system calls I think we should have the
> >MAP_LOCKONFAULT for parity with MAP_LOCKED.
> 
> I'm not convinced, but it's not a major issue.
> 
> >>
> >>>- mlock() takes a `flags' argument.  Presently that's
> >>>   MLOCK_LOCKED|MLOCK_LOCKONFAULT.
> >>>
> >>>- munlock() takes a `flags' arument.  MLOCK_LOCKED|MLOCK_LOCKONFAULT
> >>>   to specify which flags are being cleared.
> >>>
> >>>- mlockall() and munlockall() ditto.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>IOW, LOCKED and LOCKEDONFAULT are treated identically and independently.
> >>>
> >>>Now, that's how we would have designed all this on day one.  And I
> >>>think we can do this now, by adding new mlock2() and munlock2()
> >>>syscalls.  And we may as well deprecate the old mlock() and munlock(),
> >>>not that this matters much.
> >>>
> >>>*should* we do this?  I'm thinking "yes" - it's all pretty simple
> >>>boilerplate and wrappers and such, and it gets the interface correct,
> >>>and extensible.
> >>
> >>If the new LOCKONFAULT functionality is indeed desired (I haven't
> >>still decided myself) then I agree that would be the cleanest way.
> >
> >Do you disagree with the use cases I have listed or do you think there
> >is a better way of addressing those cases?
> 
> I'm somewhat sceptical about the security one. Are security
> sensitive buffers that large to matter? The performance one is more
> convincing and I don't see a better way, so OK.

They can be, the two that come to mind are medical images and high
resolution sensor data.

> 
> >
> >>
> >>>What do others think?
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]