Re: [PATCH 0/5] Volatile Ranges (v12) & LSF-MM discussion fodder

From: Dave Hansen
Date: Tue Apr 01 2014 - 19:01:53 EST

On 04/01/2014 02:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 02:21 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> Either way, optimistic volatile pointers are nowhere near as
>> transparent to the application as the above description suggests,
>> which makes this usecase not very interesting, IMO.
> ... however, I think you're still derating the value way too much. The
> case of user space doing elastic memory management is more and more
> common, and for a lot of those applications it is perfectly reasonable
> to either not do system calls or to have to devolatilize first.

The SIGBUS is only in cases where the memory is set as volatile and
_then_ accessed, right?

John, this was something that the Mozilla guys asked for, right? Any
idea why this isn't ever a problem for them?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at