[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150727073129.GE11657@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:31:29 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 5/7] mm: mmap: Add mmap flag to request VM_LOCKONFAULT
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 05:28:43PM -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
> The cost of faulting in all memory to be locked can be very high when
> working with large mappings. If only portions of the mapping will be
> used this can incur a high penalty for locking.
>
> Now that we have the new VMA flag for the locked but not present state,
> expose it as an mmap option like MAP_LOCKED -> VM_LOCKED.
As I mentioned before, I don't think this interface is justified.
MAP_LOCKED has known issues[1]. The MAP_LOCKED problem is not necessary
affects MAP_LOCKONFAULT, but still.
Let's not add new interface unless it's demonstrably useful.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20150114095019.GC4706@dhcp22.suse.cz
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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