Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: introduce process_mrelease system call

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 1:15 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 23.07.21 10:11, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 11:20 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:mhocko@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> >     On Thu 22-07-21 21:47:56, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >      > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 7:04 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx
> >     <mailto:shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >      >
> >      > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 6:14 PM Suren Baghdasaryan
> >     <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> >      > > wrote:
> >      > > >
> >      > > [...]
> >      > > > +
> >      > > > +       mmap_read_lock(mm);
> >      > >
> >      > > How about mmap_read_trylock(mm) and return -EAGAIN on failure?
> >      > >
> >      >
> >      > That sounds like a good idea. Thanks! I'll add that in the next
> >     respin.
> >
> >     Why is that a good idea? Can you do anything meaningful about the
> >     failure other than immediately retry the syscall and hope for the best?
> >
> >
> > I was thinking if this syscall implements "best effort without blocking"
> > approach then for a more strict usage user can simply retry. However
> > retrying means issuing another syscall, so additional overhead...
> > I guess such "best effort" approach would be unusual for a syscall, so
> > maybe we can keep it as it is now and if such "do not block" mode is
> > needed we can use flags to implement it later?
>
> The process is dying, so I am not sure what we are trying to optimize
> here in respect to locking ...

Trying not to block the caller, which is likely a system health
monitoring process. However, if not blocking is important, it can
issue this syscall from a separate thread... Let's scratch that "do
not block" mode and keep it simple as it is now.

>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.
>