[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160426004124.GH21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:41:24 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...inux.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix VM_MAYSHARE mappings for NOMMU
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:09:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:19:44 -0400 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
>
> > Subject: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix VM_MAYSHARE mappings for NOMMU
>
> I take it that "ramfs" was intended here.
They're two names for the same thing; I'm not sure which should be
preferred.
Rich
>
> > The nommu do_mmap expects f_op->get_unmapped_area to either succeed or
> > return -ENOSYS for VM_MAYSHARE (e.g. private read-only) mappings.
> > Returning addr in the non-MAP_SHARED case was completely wrong, and
> > only happened to work because addr was 0. However, it prevented
> > VM_MAYSHARE mappings from sharing backing with the fs cache, and
> > forced such mappings (including shareable program text) to be copied
> > whenever the number of mappings transitioned from 0 to 1, impacting
> > performance and memory usage. Subsequent mappings beyond the first
> > still correctly shared memory with the first.
> >
> > Instead, treat VM_MAYSHARE identically to VM_SHARED at the file ops
> > level; do_mmap already handles the semantic differences between them.
> >
> > ...
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists