Re: Should mmap MAP_LOCKED fail if mm_poppulate fails?

[Michal Hocko]

On Tue 28-04-15 11:38:35, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I am still not sure I see the problem here.
> 
> Basically, I absolutely hate the notion of us doing something
> unsynchronized, when I can see us undoing a mmap that another thread
> is doing. It's wrong.
> 
> You also didn't react to all the *other* things that were wrong in
> that patch-set. The games you play with !fatal_signal_pending() etc
> are just crazy.

I planed to get to those later, because I felt the locks vs. racing
mmaps argument was the most important objection.

> End result: I absolutely detest the whole thing. I told you what I
> consider an acceptable solution instead, that is much simpler and
> doesn't have any of the problems of your patchset.

I will surely think about those. As I've written in the cover email
already, I am fine with patching the man page and be clear about a long
term behavior. The primary motivation for this RFC was to start the
discussion.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/