Re: [RFC PATCH] userfaultfd: Add feature to request for a signal delivery

[prakash.sangappa]

On 06/29/2017 03:46 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:23:32AM -0700, Prakash Sangappa wrote:
[...]
> > Will this result in a signal delivery?
> >
> > In the use case described, the database application does not need any event
> > for  hole punching. Basically, just a signal for any invalid access to
> > mapped
> > area over holes in the file.
>   
> Well, what I had in mind was using a single-process uffd monitor that will
> track all the userfault file descriptors. With UFFD_EVENT_REMOVE this
> process will know what areas are invalid and it will be able to process the
> invalid access in any way it likes, e.g. send SIGBUS to the database
> application.


Use of a monitor process is also an overhead for the database.


> If you mmap() and userfaultfd_register() only at the initialization time,
> it might be also possible to avoid sending userfault file descriptors to
> the monitor process with UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK.

The new processes are always exec'd in the database case and these
processes could be mapping different files. So, not sure if
UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_FORK will be useful.  Also, it may not be one
process spawning the other new processes.


> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.