[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150727140355.GA11360@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:03:55 +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 Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 09:41:26AM -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> I understand and should have been more explicit. This patch is still
> included becuase I have an internal user that wants to see it added.
> The problem discussed in the thread you point out does not affect
> MAP_LOCKONFAULT because we do not attempt to populate the region with
> MAP_LOCKONFAULT.
>
> As I told Vlastimil, if this is a hard NAK with the patch I can work
> with that. Otherwise I prefer it stays.
That's not how it works.
Once an ABI added to the kernel it stays there practically forever.
Therefore it must be useful to justify maintenance cost. I don't see it
demonstrated.
So, NAK.
--
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