[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1192201105.27435.41.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:58:25 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@...ebsd.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, hugh <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid dirtying shared mappings on mlock
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 07:53 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:50:22 +0200
> > > > The pages will still be read-only due to dirty tracking, so the
> > > > first write will still do page_mkwrite().
> > >
> > > Which can SIGBUS, no?
> >
> > Sure, but that is no different than any other mmap'ed write. I'm not
> > seeing how an mlocked region is special here.
> >
> > I agree it would be nice if mmap'ed writes would have better error
> > reporting than SIGBUS, but such is life.
>
> well... there's another consideration
> people use mlock() in cases where they don't want to go to the
> filesystem for paging and stuff as well (think the various iscsi
> daemons and other things that get in trouble).. those kind of uses
> really use mlock to avoid
> 1) IO to the filesystem
> 2) Needing memory allocations for pagefault like things
> at least for the more "hidden" cases...
>
> prefaulting everything ready pretty much gives them that... letting
> things fault on demand... nicely breaks that.
Non of that is changed. So I'm a little puzzled as to which side you
argue.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists