On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 03:32:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 23:10:53 +0000 Pedro Falcato <pedro.falc...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:53 PM Lorenzo Stoakes
> > <lorenzo.stoa...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The above code sequence doesn't seem at all onerous.  I'm not
> > > > understanding why it's worth altering the kernel to permit this little
> > > > shortcut?
> > >
> > > In practice it adds quite a bit of overhead for something that whatever
> > > mechanism is using the pidfd can avoid.
> > >
> > > It was specifically intended for a real case of utilising
> > > process_madvise(), using the newly extended ability to batch _any_
> > > madvise() operations for the current process, like:
> > >
> > >         if (process_madvise(PIDFD_SELF, iovec, 10, MADV_GUARD_INSTALL, 
> > > 0)) {
> > >             ... error handling ...
> > >         }
> > >
> > > vs.
> > >
> > >         pid_t pid = getpid();
> > >         int pidfd = pidfd_open(pid, PIDFD_THREAD);
> > >
> > >         if (pidfd < 0) {
> > >            ... error handling ...
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         if (process_madvise(PIDFD_SELF, iovec, 10, MADV_GUARD_INSTALL, 
> > > 0)) {
> > >            ... cleanup pidfd ...
> > >            ... error handling ...
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         ...
> > >
> > >         ... cleanup pidfd ...
> > >
> > > So in practice, it's actually a lot more ceremony and noise. Suren has 
> > > been
> > > working with this code in practice and found this to be useful.
> >
> > It's also nice to add that people on the libc/allocator side should
> > also appreciate skipping pidfd_open's reliability concerns (mostly,
> > that RLIMIT_NOFILE Should Not(tm) ever affect thread spawning or a
> > malloc[1]). Besides the big syscall reduction and nice speedup, that
> > is.
> >
> > [1] whether this is the already case is an exercise left to the
> > reader, but at the very least we should not add onto existing problems
>
> Thanks.
>
> Could we please get all the above spelled out much more thoroughly in
> the [0/n] description (aka Patch Series Sales Brochure)?

Ack, will expand if there's a respin, or Christian - perhaps you could fold
the above explanation into the cover letter?

Intent is for Christian to take this in his tree (if he so wishes) to be
clear!

Cheers

Reply via email to