Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] mm/gup: Introduce exclusive GUP pinning

[David Hildenbrand]

> > Again from that thread, one of most important aspects guest_memfd is that VMAs
> > are not required.  Stating the obvious, lack of VMAs makes it really hard to drive
> > swap, reclaim, migration, etc. from code that fundamentally operates on VMAs.
> >
> >   : More broadly, no VMAs are required.  The lack of stage-1 page tables are nice to
> >   : have; the lack of VMAs means that guest_memfd isn't playing second fiddle, e.g.
> >   : it's not subject to VMA protections, isn't restricted to host mapping size, etc.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zfmpby6i3PfBEcCV@xxxxxxxxxx
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zg3xF7dTtx6hbmZj@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> I wonder if it might be more productive to also discuss this in one of
> the PUCKs, ahead of LPC, in addition to trying to go over this in LPC.

I don't know in  which context you usually discuss that, but I could 
propose that as a topic in the bi-weekly MM meeting.

This would, of course, be focused on the bigger MM picture: how to mmap, 
how how to support huge pages, interaction with page pinning, ... So 
obviously more MM focused once we are in agreement that we want to 
support shared memory in guest_memfd and how to make that work with core-mm.

Discussing if we want shared memory in guest_memfd might be betetr 
suited for a different, more CC/KVM specific meeting (likely the "PUCKs" 
mentioned here?).

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb