[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZovwO8KJ5Cv5fa26@zx2c4.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:57:15 +0200
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>,
Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <dhildenb@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 1/4] mm: add VM_DROPPABLE for designating always
lazily freeable mappings
On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 10:23:10AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > As a side note, I'll raise that I am not a particular fan of the
> > "droppable" terminology, at least with the "read 0s" approach.
> >
> > From a user perspective, the memory might suddenly lose its state and
> > read as 0s just like volatile memory when it loses power. "dropping
> > pages" sounds more like an implementation detail.
>
> Long story short: it's the hypervisor that could be effectively
> dropping/zeroing out that memory, not the guest VM. "NONVOLATILE" might
> be clearer than "DROPPABLE".
Surely you mean "VOLATILE", not "NONVOLATILE", right?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists