[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:39:07 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: missing madvise functionality
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> The treatment is identical to clean swapcache pages, with the sole
> exception that they don't actually consume any swap space - hence the fake
> swapcache entry thing.
I see, sneaking through try_to_unmap's anon PageSwapCache assumptions
as simply as possible - thanks.
(Coincidentally, Andrea pointed to precisely the same issue in the
no PAGE_ZERO thread, when we were toying with writable but clean.)
> One thing which we haven't sorted out with all this stuff: once the
> application has marked an address range (and some pages) as
> whatever-were-going-call-this-feature, how does the application undo
> that change?
By re-referencing the pages. (Hmm, so an incorrect app which accesses
"free"d areas, will undo it: well, okay, nothing terrible about that.)
> What effect will things like mremap, madvise and mlock have upon
> these pages?
mlock will undo the state in its make_pages_present: I guess that
should happen in or near follow_page's mark_page_accessed.
mremap? Other madvises? Nothing much at all: mremap can move
them around, and the madvises do whatever they do - I don't notice
any problem in that direction, but it'll be easier when we have an
implementation to poke at.
Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists