Re: [PATCH 00/17] RFC: userfault v2

[zhanghailiang]

Hi Andrea,

Is there any new about this discussion? ;)

Will you plan to support 'only wrprotect fault' in the userfault API?

Thanks,
zhanghailiang

On 2014/10/30 19:31, zhanghailiang wrote:
> On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > Hi Zhanghailiang,
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
> > > Hi Andrea,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your hard work on userfault;)
> > >
> > > This is really a useful API.
> > >
> > > I want to confirm a question:
> > > Can we support distinguishing between writing and reading memory for userfault?
> > > That is, we can decide whether writing a page, reading a page or both trigger userfault.
> > >
> > > I think this will help supporting vhost-scsi,ivshmem for migration,
> > > we can trace dirty page in userspace.
> > >
> > > Actually, i'm trying to relize live memory snapshot based on pre-copy and userfault,
> > > but reading memory from migration thread will also trigger userfault.
> > > It will be easy to implement live memory snapshot, if we support configuring
> > > userfault for writing memory only.
> >
> > Mail is going to be long enough already so I'll just assume tracking
> > dirty memory in userland (instead of doing it in kernel) is worthy
> > feature to have here.
> >
> > After some chat during the KVMForum I've been already thinking it
> > could be beneficial for some usage to give userland the information
> > about the fault being read or write, combined with the ability of
> > mapping pages wrprotected to mcopy_atomic (that would work without
> > false positives only with MADV_DONTFORK also set, but it's already set
> > in qemu). That will require "vma->vm_flags & VM_USERFAULT" to be
> > checked also in the wrprotect faults, not just in the not present
> > faults, but it's not a massive change. Returning the read/write
> > information is also a not massive change. This will then payoff mostly
> > if there's also a way to remove the memory atomically (kind of
> > remap_anon_pages).
> >
> > Would that be enough? I mean are you still ok if non present read
> > fault traps too (you'd be notified it's a read) and you get
> > notification for both wrprotect and non present faults?
> Hi Andrea,
>
> Thanks for your reply, and your patience;)
>
> Er, maybe i didn't describe clearly. What i really need for live memory snapshot
> is only wrprotect fault, like kvm's dirty tracing mechanism, *only tracing write action*.
>
> My initial solution scheme for live memory snapshot is:
> (1) pause VM
> (2) using userfaultfd to mark all memory of VM is wrprotect (readonly)
> (3) save deivce state to snapshot file
> (4) resume VM
> (5) snapshot thread begin to save page of memory to snapshot file
> (6) VM is going to run, and it is OK for VM or other thread to read ram (no fault trap),
>      but if VM try to write page (dirty the page), there will be
>      a userfault trap notification.
> (7) a fault-handle-thread reads the page request from userfaultfd,
>      it will copy content of the page to some buffers, and then remove the page's
>      wrprotect limit(still using the userfaultfd to tell kernel).
> (8) after step (7), VM can continue to write the page which is now can be write.
> (9) snapshot thread save the page cached in step (7)
> (10) repeat step (5)~(9) until all VM's memory is saved to snapshot file.
>
> So, what i need for userfault is supporting only wrprotect fault. i don't
> want to get notification for non present reading faults, it will influence
> VM's performance and the efficiency of doing snapshot.
>
> Also, i think this feature will benefit for migration of ivshmem and vhost-scsi
> which have no dirty-page-tracing now.
>
> > The question then is how you mark the memory readonly to let the
> > wrprotect faults trap if the memory already existed and you didn't map
> > it yourself in the guest with mcopy_atomic with a readonly flag.
> >
> > My current plan would be:
> >
> > - keep MADV_USERFAULT|NOUSERFAULT just to set VM_USERFAULT for the
> >    fast path check in the not-present and wrprotect page fault
> >
> > - if VM_USERFAULT is set, find if there's a userfaultfd registered
> >    into that vma too
> >
> >      if yes engage userfaultfd protocol
> >
> >      otherwise raise SIGBUS (single threaded apps should be fine with
> >      SIGBUS and it'll avoid them to spawn a thread in order to talk the
> >      userfaultfd protocol)
> >
> > - if userfaultfd protocol is engaged, return read|write fault + fault
> >    address to read(ufd) syscalls
> >
> > - leave the "userfault" resolution mechanism independent of the
> >    userfaultfd protocol so we keep the two problems separated and we
> >    don't mix them in the same API which makes it even harder to
> >    finalize it.
> >
> >      add mcopy_atomic (with a flag to map the page readonly too)
> >
> >      The alternative would be to hide mcopy_atomic (and even
> >      remap_anon_pages in order to "remove" the memory atomically for
> >      the externalization into the cloud) as userfaultfd commands to
> >      write into the fd. But then there would be no much point to keep
> >      MADV_USERFAULT around if I do so and I could just remove it
> >      too or it doesn't look clean having to open the userfaultfd just
> >      to issue an hidden mcopy_atomic.
> >
> >      So it becomes a decision if the basic SIGBUS mode for single
> >      threaded apps should be supported or not. As long as we support
> >      SIGBUS too and we don't force to use userfaultfd as the only
> >      mechanism to be notified about userfaults, having a separate
> >      mcopy_atomic syscall sounds cleaner.
> >
> >      Perhaps mcopy_atomic could be used in other cases that may arise
> >      later that may not be connected with the userfault.
> >
> > Questions to double check the above plan is ok:
> >
> > 1) should I drop the SIGBUS behavior and MADV_USERFAULT?
> >
> > 2) should I hide mcopy_atomic as a write into the userfaultfd?
> >
> >     NOTE: even if I hide mcopy_atomic as a userfaultfd command to write
> >     into the fd, the buffer pointer passed to write() syscall would
> >     still _not_ be pointing to the data like a regular write, but it
> >     would be a pointer to a command structure that points to the source
> >     and destination data of the "hidden" mcopy_atomic, the only
> >     advantage is that perhaps I could wakeup the blocked page faults
> >     without requiring an additional syscall.
> >
> >     The standalone mcopy_atomic would still require a write into the
> >     userfaultfd as it happens now after remap_anon_pages returns, in
> >     order to wakeup the stopped page faults.
> >
> > 3) should I add a registration command to trap only write faults?
>
> Sure, that is what i really need;)
>
>
> Best Regardsï
> zhanghailiang
>
> >     The protocol can always be extended later anyway in a backwards
> >     compatible way but it's better if we get it fully featured from the
> >     start.
> >
> > For completeness, some answers for other questions I've seen floating
> > around but that weren't posted on the list yet (you can skip reading
> > the below part if not interested):
> >
> > - open("/dev/userfault") instead of sys_userfaultfd(), I don't see the
> >    benefit: userfaultfd is just like eventfd in terms of kernel API and
> >    registering a /dev/ device actually sounds trickier. userfault is a
> >    core VM feature and generally we prefer syscalls for core VM
> >    features instead of running ioctl on some chardev that may or may
> >    not exist. (like we did with /dev/ksm -> MADV_MERGEABLE)
> >
> > - there was a suggestion during KVMForum about allowing an external
> >    program to attach to any MM. Like ptrace. So you could have a single
> >    process managing all userfaults for different processes. However
> >    because I cannot allow multiple userfaultfd to register into the
> >    same range, this doesn't look very reliable (ptrace is kind of an
> >    optional/debug feature while if userfault goes wrong and returns
> >    -EBUSY things go bad) and there may be other complications. If I'd
> >    allow multiple userfaultfd to register into the same range, I
> >    wouldn't even know who to deliver the userfault to. It is an erratic
> >    behavior. Currently it'd return -EBUSY if the app has a bug and does
> >    that, but maybe later this can be relaxed to allow higher
> >    scalability with a flag (userfaultfd gets flags as parameters), but
> >    it still would need to be the same logic that manages userfaults and
> >    the only point of allowing multiple ufd to map the same range would
> >    be SMP scalability. So I tend to see the userfaultfd as a MM local
> >    thing. The thread managing the userfaults can still talk with
> >    another process in the local machine using pipes or sockets if it
> >    needs to.
> >
> > - the userfaultfd protocol version handshake was done this way because
> >    it looked more reliable.
> >
> >    Of course we could pass the version of the protocol as parameter to
> >    userfaultfd too, but running the syscall multiple times until
> >    -EPROTO didn't return anymore doesn't seem any better than writing
> >    into the fd the wanted protocol until you read it back instead of
> >    -1ULL. It just looked more reliable not having to run the syscall
> >    again and again while depending on -EPROTO or some other
> >    -Esomething.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andrea
> >
> > .
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
> .


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/