Re: [PATCH v21 1/4] mm: add VM_DROPPABLE for designating always lazily freeable mappings

[David Hildenbrand]

On 08.07.24 15:55, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 10:11:24AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > The semantics are much more intuitive. No need for separate mmap flags.
>
> Agreed.
>   
> > Likely we'll have to adjust mlock() as well. Also, I think we should
> > just bail out with hugetlb as well.
>
> Ack.
>
> > Further, maybe we want to disallow madvise() clearing these flags here,
> > just to be consistent.
>
> Good thinking.
>
> > As a side note, I'll raise that I am not a particular fan of the
> > "droppable" terminology, at least with the "read 0s" approach.
> >
> >   From a user perspective, the memory might suddenly lose its state and
> > read as 0s just like volatile memory when it loses power. "dropping
> > pages" sounds more like an implementation detail.
> >
> > Something like MAP_VOLATILE might be more intuitive (similar to the
> > proposed MADV_VOLATILE).
> >
> > But naming is hard, just mentioning to share my thought :)
>
> Naming is hard, but *renaming* is annoying. I like droppable simply
> because that's what I've been calling it in my head. MAP_VOLATILE is
> fine with me though, and seems reasonable enough. So I'll name it that,
> and then please don't change your mind about it later so I won't have to
> rename everything again. :)

:) Nah. But wait with any remaining until more than one person thinks 
it's a good idea.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb