[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090331151845.GT9137@random.random>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:18:45 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Cc: Izik Eidus <ieidus@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, avi@...hat.com,
chrisw@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com, jeremy@...p.org,
mtosatti@...hat.com, hugh@...itas.com, corbet@....net,
yaniv@...hat.com, dmonakhov@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] add ksm kernel shared memory driver.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:09:24AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I don't think the registering of ram should be done via sysfs. That would
> be a pretty bad interface IMHO. But I do think the functionality that
> ksmctl provides along with the security issues I mentioned earlier really
> suggest that there ought to be a separate API for control vs. registration
> and that control API would make a lot of sense as a sysfs API.
>
> If you wanted to explore alternative APIs for registration, madvise() seems
> like the obvious candidate to me.
>
> madvise(start, size, MADV_SHARABLE) seems like a pretty obvious API to me.
madvise to me would sound appropriate, only if ksm would be always-in,
which is not the case as it won't even be built if it's configured to
N.
Besides madvise is sus covered syscall, and this is linux specific detail.
--
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