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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:29:24 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <>
To:	Jerome Marchand <>
Cc:, Randy Dunlap <>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <>,
	Heiko Carstens <>,, Hugh Dickins <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Paul Mackerras <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <>,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] mm, shmem: Show location of non-resident
	shmem pages in smaps

On 09/15, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> On 09/15/2014 06:21 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Hi Jerome,
> >
> > Not sure I understand this patch correctly, will try to read it later.
> > But a couple of nits/questions anyway,
> >
> > On 09/15, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> >>
> >> +The ShmXXX lines only appears for shmem mapping. They show the amount of memory
> >> +from the mapping that is currently:
> >> + - resident in RAM but not mapped into any process (ShmNotMapped)
> >
> > But how can we know that it is not mapped by another process?
> Its mapcount is zero.

Ah, yes, I missed the "!count" check. Thanks!

> > And in fact "not mapped" looks confusing (at least to me).
> "Not mapped" as "not present in a page table". It does belong to a
> userspace mapping though. I wonder if there is a less ambiguous terminology.

To me "not present in page tables" looks more understandable, but I won't

> > IIUC it is actually
> > mapped even by this process, just it never tried to fault these (resident or
> > swapped) pages in. Right?
> No these pages are in the page cache. This can happen when the only
> process which have accessed these exits or munmap() the mapping.

Yes, yes, I meant that this process didn't touch these pages and thus
pte_none() == T.

> > And I am not sure why we ignore SHMEM_SWAPCACHE...
> Hugh didn't like it as it is a small and transient value.

OK, but perhaps update_shmem_stats() should treat it as SHMEM_SWAP.
Nevermind, I leave this to you and Hugh.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists