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

[Dave Hansen]

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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/