Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] mm: Add MREMAP_DONTUNMAP to mremap().
From: Kirill A. Shutemov
Date: Fri Feb 21 2020 - 07:23:23 EST
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 03:55:53PM -0800, Brian Geffon wrote:
> Hi Kirill,
> > I have hard time understanding the case when new_len != old_len.
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but looks like that you change the size of old
> > mapping to be the new_len and then create a new of the same new_len.
> > This doesn't look right to me.
> > In my opinion, MREMAP_DONTUNMAP has to leave the old mapping intact. And
> > create the new mapping adjusted to the new_len.
> > Other option is to force new_len == old_len if MREMAP_DONTUNMAP is
> > specified. It would simplify the implementation. And I don't see why
> > anybody would really want anything else.
> I had been approaching this as, "do what mremap would have done in
> this situation except skip the last step." Meaning, whatever the final
> state of the old mapping was MREMAP_DONTUNMAP meant that you should
> just not do the unmap operation on the old mapping at the end. But I
> understand why it's confusing, especially when in the case of the VMA
> growing you're left with the old vma of size old_len and the new_vma
> of size new_len but only containing old_len worth of pages.
> Personally, I don't think this is a problem having that behavior
> because it can be documented and it just adds a small amount of
> Nonetheless, I agree with you and I also cannot come up with a
> situation where you'd actually want to do this so I'm willing to
> restrict it to old_len == new_len and return -EINVAL if not, it
> simplifies it a bit and accounting becomes a easier because the
> outcome is always the same two mappings of size old_len and the size
> of the locked_vm never changes. We can always allow the resize
> operation later if there becomes a need. If everyone is okay with this
> restriction I can send a new patch.
If anyone would want to chagne size it can be archived by followup
mremap() operations. There's no need in one-shot operation.
Kirill A. Shutemov