Re: [PATCH 00/23] userfaultfd v4

[Richard Weinberger]

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015 19:30:57 +0200 Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> This is the latest userfaultfd patchset against mm-v4.1-rc3
>> 2015-05-14-10:04.
>
> It would be useful to have some userfaultfd testcases in
> tools/testing/selftests/.  Partly as an aid to arch maintainers when
> enabling this.  And also as a standalone thing to give people a
> practical way of exercising this interface.
>
> What are your thoughts on enabling userfaultfd for other architectures,
> btw?  Are there good use cases, are people working on it, etc?

UML is using SIGSEGV for page faults.
i.e. the UML processes receives a SIGSEGV, learns the faulting address
from the mcontext
and resolves the fault by installing a new mapping.

If userfaultfd is faster that the SIGSEGV notification it could speed
up UML a bit.
For UML I'm only interested in the notification, not the resolving
part. The "missing"
data is present, only a new mapping is needed. No copy of data.

Andrea, what do you think?

-- 
Thanks,
//richard
--
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/