[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170925123508.pzjbe7wgwagnr5li@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:35:08 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
linux-man@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mremap.2: Add description of old_size == 0 functionality
On Tue 19-09-17 14:11:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/18/2017 07:11 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
[...]
> > I can drop this wording, but would still like to suggest memfd_create as
> > the preferred method of creating duplicate mappings. It would be good if
> > others on Cc: could comment as well.
>
> mremap seems to work with non-anonymous mappings, too:
only for shared mappings in fact. Because once we have CoW then mremap
will not provide you with the same content as the original mapping.
[...]
> > Just curious, does glibc make use of this today? Or, is this just something
> > that you think may be useful.
>
> To my knowledge, we do not use this today. But it certainly looks very
> useful.
What would be the usecase. I mean why don't you simply create a new
mapping by a plain mmap when you have no guarantee about the same
content?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists