Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1681089
| From | Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] userfaultfd: Add feature to request for a signal delivery |
| Date | 2017-07-04 18:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tZzbr-2v3-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <tXCGt-56U-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tXPu3-4Pd-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <tY0IN-3Mu-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tY3Ql-5Tb-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tYeVr-4aS-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 05:55:08PM -0700, prakash sangappa wrote: > Interesting that UFFDIO_COPY is faster then fallocate(). In the DB use case > the page does not need to be allocated at the time a process trips on > the hugetlbfs > file hole and receives SIGBUS. fallocate() is called on the hugetlbfs file, > when more memory needs to be allocated by a separate process. The major difference is that with UFFDIO_COPY the hugepage will be immediately mapped into the virtual address without requiring any further minor fault. So it's ideal if you could arrange to call UFFDIO_COPY from the same process that is going to touch and use the hugetlbfs data immediately after. You would eliminate a minor fault that way. UFFDIO_COPY at least for anon was measured to perform better than a regular page fault too. > Regarding hugetlbfs mount option, one consideration is to allow mounts of > hugetlbfs inside user namespaces's mount namespace. Which would allow > non privileged processes to mount hugetlbfs for use inside a user > namespace. > This may be needed even for the 'min_size' mount option using which an > application could reserve huge pages and mount a filesystem for its use, > with out the need to have privileges given the system has enough hugepages > configured. It seems if non privileged processes are allowed to mount > hugetlbfs > filesystem, then min_size should be subject to some resource limits. > > Mounting inside user namespace will be a different patch proposal later. There's no particular reason to make UFFDIO_FEATURE_SIGBUS a privileged op unless we want to eliminate the branch with the static key, so it's certainly simpler than dealing with hugetlbfs min_size reserves. I'm positive about the UFFDIO_FEATURE_SIGBUS tradeoffs, but others feel free to comment. If you could make second patch to extend the selftest to exercise and validates UFFDIO_FEATURE_SIGBUS in anon/shmem/hugetlbfs it'd be great. Thanks, Andrea
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC PATCH] userfaultfd: Add feature to request for a signal delivery Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> - 2017-07-04 18:50 +0200 Re: [RFC PATCH] userfaultfd: Add feature to request for a signal delivery "prakash.sangappa" <prakash.sangappa@oracle.com> - 2017-07-06 00:30 +0200
csiph-web