I am using boost::interprocess to attempt to share a block of memory between >2 processes. I am allocating the memory using:
std::unique_ptr<boost::interprocess::managed_shared_memory> tableStorage_;
When running the code inside docker/podman, I have to run with --ipc=host to be able to execute the code, else it will just happily sit there waiting forever. Not sure for what though.
I am seeing the same behavior in and outside docker/podman. Sometimes when the code exits it doesn't seem to not cleanup /dev/shm if it is the last process with a hold on that memory. Is there a way to make sure that /dev/shm gets cleaned out when the process exits and it is the last process to hold onto the file in /dev/shm?
Thanks!
That's something your program can/should take care of.
Boost Interprocess (famously) doesn't have a portable robust lock implementation. Meaning that unless you do a graceful shutdown, locks might be held, leading to potential deadlock.
I'd suggest using a timed open, guarded with an unconditional T::remove. Since that is a destructive operation, perhaps you want to only provide when a certain flag is set (e.g. --force)
To detect whether your process is last, you could use shared pointers.
See also e.g. Boost interprocess shared memory delete object without destroy
Related
Familiarity with how Linux Kernel Tracepoints work is not necessarily required to help with this question, it is just what is motivating this problem. In essence, I am looking for a way to store per-process data for a kernel module, without modifying the Linux source (e.g. struct task_struct), and ideally without using locks. Here is my specific question:
I have a kernel module that hooks into the sys_enter (defined here for x86_64, aarch64) and sys_exit (x86_64, aarch64) tracepoints. For each system call issued, I need to pass some data between the enter probe and the exit probe.
Some things I have considered: I could ...
...use one global variable -- but that will be shared between concurrently executing system calls on different CPUs, creating a race.
...use one global map from PID (of the process issuing the system call) to my data, together with locks -- but that will unnecessarily require synchronization between all CPUs on each system call. I would like to avoid this, since the data is "local" to each issued system call, so I feel like there should be a way to keep it local and not add costly synchronization.
...use a per-CPU global variable -- but (it is my understanding that) a process may move to another CPU during the system call execution, making this approach incorrect.
...kmallocing some memory for my custom data upon each system call entry, then pass the address to that memory by clobbering one of the registers in struct pt_regs (both the entry and exit probe receive a pointer to said struct) -- but then I will have a memory leak for system calls that do not trigger the exit probe (such as sys_exit, which never returns).
I am open to any suggestions how these ideas could be refined to address the problems I listed, or any completely different ideas that I am not thinking of.
I'd use an RCU enabled hashtable, for safety.
The first option isn't actually doable, as you stated.
The third one requires you to track which process is using which CPU, which seems unnecessary.
The leaking problem of the fourth option can probably be solved somehow, but allocating memory on each system call can introduce a serious delay.
Of course that accessing the hashtable will also slow down the system, but It won't trigger a memory allocation for each system call, so I assume it'll be less harmful.
Also, I may be wrong here, but if you assume that only process creation/destruction will introduce changes to table itself (not to the data within each entry, but the location and hash value of each row) than maybe you won't even have to synchronize on each system call, but only on ones that will cause process creation/destruction.
I am creating a Golang program that creates a process and then should be able to suspend it.
To make it more memory efficient, I would need my program to be able to dump the memory of the process to disk and reload it only when needed.
I cannot find any info here on Stack Overflow and also GitHub is not helping.
Any solution?
Attempting to answer this with the limited info..
To make it more memory efficient, I would need my program to be able to dump the memory of the process to disk and reload it only when needed.
This is generally something handled by your operating system (scheduler, memory management) controlling what processes are currently running / suspended / etc. and what memory needs to be paged in / out. Trying to implement the equivalent is quite complex, error prone, and likely to be less performant. Why do you believe you need to implement this yourself?
If you are building a program and want to have explicit control about whether it should be considered runnable or not, you could create a process which forks (creating two total processes), and have the parent process suspend and resume the child process using signals:
https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/signal.7.html
If one process does a write() of size (and alignment) S (e.g. 8KB), then is it possible for another process to do a read (also of size and alignment S and the same file) that sees a mix of old and new data?
The writing process adds a checksum to each data block, and I'd like to know whether I can use a reading process to verify the checksums in the background. If the reader can see a partial write, then it will falsely indicate corruption.
What standards or documents apply here? Is there a portable way to avoid problems here, preferably without introducing lots of locking?
When a function is guaranteed to complete without there being any chance of any other process/thread/anything seeing things in a half finished state, it's said to be atomic. It either has or hasn't happened, there is no part way. While I can't speak to Windows, there are very few file operations in POSIX (which is what Linux/BSD/etc attempt to stick to) that are guaranteed to be atomic. Reading and writing are not guaranteed to be atomic.
While it would be pretty unlikely for you to write 2 bytes to a file and another process only see one of those bytes written, if by dumb luck your write straddled two different pages in memory and the VM system had to do something to prepare the second page, it's possible you'd see one byte without the other in a second process. Usually if things are page aligned in your file, they will be in memory, but again you can't rely on that.
Here's a list someone made of what is atomic in POSIX, which is pretty short, and I can't vouch for it's authenticity. (I can't think of why unlink isn't listed, for example).
I'd also caution you against testing what appears to work and running with it, the moment you start accessing files over a network file system (NFS on Unix, or SMB mounts in Windows) a lot of things that seemed to be atomic before no longer are.
If you want to have a second process calculating checksums while a first process is writing the file, you may want to open a pipe between the two and have the first process write a copy of everything down the pipe to the checksumming process. That may be faster than dealing with locking.
one of my app needs the function that free inactive/used/wired memory just like command 'purge'.
Check and google a lot, but can not get any hit
Welcome any comment
Purge doesn't do what you seem to think it does. It doesn't "free inactive/used/wired memory". As the manpage says:
It does not affect anonymous memory that has been allocated through malloc, vm_allocate, etc.
All it does is purge the disk cache. This is only useful if you're running performance tests and want to simulate the effects of "first run after cold boot" without actually cold booting. Again, from the manpage:
Purge can be used to approximate initial boot conditions with a cold disk buffer cache for performance analysis.
There is no public API for this, although a quick scan of the symbols shows that it seems to call a function CPOSXPurgeAllDiskBuffers from the CoreProfile private framework. I believe the underlying kernel and userland disk cache code is all or mostly available on http://www.opensource.apple.com, so you could do probably implement the same thing yourself, if you really want.
As iMysak says, you can just exec (or NSTask, etc.) the tool if you want to.
As a side note, it you could free used/wired memory, presumably that memory is used by something—even if you don't have pointers into it in your own data structures, malloc probably does. Are you trying to segfault your code?
Freeing inactive memory is a different story. Just freeing something up to malloc doesn't necessarily make malloc return it to the OS. And there's no way you can force it to. If you think about the way traditional UNIX works, it makes sense: When you ask it to allocate more memory, it uses sbrk to expand your data segment; if you free up memory at the top, it can sbrk back down, but if you free up memory in the middle, there's no way it can do that. Of course modern UNIX systems don't work that way, but the POSIX and C APIs are all designed to be compatible with systems that do. So, if you want to make sure memory gets freed, you have to handle memory allocation directly.
The simplest and most portable way to do this is to create and mmap a temporary backing file, or just MAP_ANON, and explicitly unmap pages when you're done with them. (This works on all POSIX systems—and, with a pretty simple wrapper, even Windows.) If you need even more control (e.g., to manually handle flushing pages to disk, etc.), you can use the mach/mach_vm.h APIs.
You can directly run it from OS // with exec() function
if I have a handle to some windows process which has stopped (killed or just ended):
Will the handle (or better the memory behind it) be re-used for another process?
Or will GetExitCodeProcess() for example get the correct result forever from now on?
If 1. is true: How "long" would GetExitCodeProcess() work?
If 2. is true: Wouldn't that mean that I can bring down the OS with starting/killing new processes, since I create more and more handles (and the OS reserves memory for them)?
I'm a bit confused about the concept of handles.
Thank you in advance!
The handle indirectly points to an kernel object. As long as there are open handles, the object will be kept alive.
Will the handle (or better the memory behind it) be re-used for another process?
The numeric value of the handle (or however it is implemented) might get reused, but that doesn't mean it'll always point to the same thing. Just like process IDs.
Or will GetExitCodeProcess() for example get the correct result forever from now on?
No. When all handles to the process are closed, the process object is freed (along with its exit code). Note that running process holds an implicit handle to itself. You can hold an open handle, though, as long as you need it.
If 2. is true: Wouldn't that mean that I can bring down the OS with starting/killing new processes, since I create more and more handles (and the OS reserves memory for them)?
There are many ways to starve the system. It will either start heavily swapping or just fail to spawn a new process at some point.
Short answer:
GetExitCodeProcess works until you call CloseHandle, after what the process object will be released and may be reused.
Long answer:
See Cat Plus Plus's answer.