linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lazy freeing of memory through MADV

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:03:16 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lazy freeing of memory through MADV_FREE 2/2

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:15:28 -0400
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:

> Restore MADV_DONTNEED to its original Linux behaviour.  This is still
> not the same behaviour as POSIX, but applications may be depending on
> the Linux behaviour already. Besides, glibc catches POSIX_MADV_DONTNEED
> and makes sure nothing is done...

OK, we need to flesh this out a lot please.  People often get confused
about what our MADV_DONTNEED behaviour is.  I regularly forget, then look
at the code, then get it wrong.  That's for mainline, let alone older
kernels whose behaviour is gawd-knows-what.

So...  For the changelog (and the manpage) could we please have a full
description of the 2.6.21 behaviour and the 2.6.21-post-rik behaviour (and
the 2.4 behaviour, if it differs at all)?  Also some code comments to
demystify all of this once and for all?

Thanks.
-
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/