Re: missing madvise functionality

[Hugh Dickins]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> The treatment is identical to clean swapcache pages, with the sole
> exception that they don't actually consume any swap space - hence the fake
> swapcache entry thing.

I see, sneaking through try_to_unmap's anon PageSwapCache assumptions
as simply as possible - thanks.

(Coincidentally, Andrea pointed to precisely the same issue in the
no PAGE_ZERO thread, when we were toying with writable but clean.)

> One thing which we haven't sorted out with all this stuff: once the
> application has marked an address range (and some pages) as
> whatever-were-going-call-this-feature, how does the application undo
> that change?

By re-referencing the pages.  (Hmm, so an incorrect app which accesses
"free"d areas, will undo it: well, okay, nothing terrible about that.)

> What effect will things like mremap, madvise and mlock have upon
> these pages?

mlock will undo the state in its make_pages_present: I guess that
should happen in or near follow_page's mark_page_accessed.

mremap?  Other madvises?  Nothing much at all: mremap can move
them around, and the madvises do whatever they do - I don't notice
any problem in that direction, but it'll be easier when we have an
implementation to poke at.

Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/