From: Sam Kumar <samkumar@cs.ucla.edu>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Tracking Page Faults in Another Process
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 17:22:57 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <326262860.30503812.1703640177089.JavaMail.zimbra@cs.ucla.edu> (raw)
Hello,
I'm writing a performance enhancement tool as a user program for Linux. I wanted to ask about possible ways to achieve this given existing Linux APIs. I also wanted to ask about ideas I have for extending the kernel to implement this---if there's appetite for them, then someone (perhaps myself) may contribute a patch implementing them.
I am using userfaultfd to track page faults in the target process. I need to "mark" a page in another process, so that any future read or write to that page will result in a page fault captured by userfaultfd. userfaultfd provides a "write-protect" mode, but it only tracks writes to a page; I want to also track reads . So I'm wondering whether userfaultfd could be extended to also support a "read-write-protect" mode that allows for marking pages as both read-protected and write-protected, and detects subsequent page faults on those pages for both reads and writes? If there is any ongoing effort to implement this I would be curious to know; otherwise, if the community thinks it's a good idea, then someone (perhaps myself) may contribute a patch for this.
An alternative I looked into, to force a future page fault on a page, is process_madvise. Unfortunately, MADV_PAGEOUT doesn't work on pages that are mapped multiple times (see https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.3.8/source/mm/madvise.c#L479). The MADV_DONTNEED option would work for at least part of my use case, but unfortunately it is not supported with process_madvise (see https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mm/cover/20210926161259.238054-1-namit@vmware.com/).
If there's appetite for extending the kernel with a read-write-protect mode for userfaultfd, or with support for process_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED), then perhaps I can contribute this. Alternatively, if such extensions are unnecessary because the kernel provides another way of achieving this functionality, then I would love to know!
(If you reply, please cc me at samkumar@cs.ucla.edu.)
Thanks,
Sam Kumar
reply other threads:[~2023-12-27 1:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=326262860.30503812.1703640177089.JavaMail.zimbra@cs.ucla.edu \
--to=samkumar@cs.ucla.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®