[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905061732220.5775@blonde.anvils>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 17:36:51 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@...hat.com>
cc: Izik Eidus <ieidus@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
aarcange@...hat.com, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, device@...ana.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ksm: change the KSM_REMOVE_MEMORY_REGION ioctl.
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Chris Wright wrote:
>
> There's already locking issues w/ using madvise and ksm, so yes,
> changes would need to be made. Some question of how (whether) to handle
> registration of unmapped ranges, closest to say ->mm->def_flags=VM_MERGE.
> My hunch is there's 2 cases users might care about, a specific range
> (qemu-kvm, CERN app, etc) or the entire vma space of a process.
Good food for thought there, but not on my mind at this moment.
> Another
> question of what to do w/ VM_LOCKED, should that exclude VM_MERGE or
> let user get what asked for?
What's the issue with VM_LOCKED? We wouldn't want to merge a page
while it was under get_user_pages (unless KSM's own, but ignore that),
but what's the deal with VM_LOCKED?
Is the phrase "covert channel" going to come up somehow?
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