On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:22:40PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 07:13:33PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > Even more I'd prefer one of these two solutions below, which sidestep > > > that uncleanliness - but both of these would be in mmap only, no clean > > > way to change afterwards (except by munmap or mmap MAP_FIXED): > > > > > > 1. Use the standard mmap(NULL, len, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, > > > MAP_SHARED|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) which gives you a memory object > > > shared with children, so write-protection and COW won't come into it. > > > > > > or if there's good reason why that's no good, > > > > > > 2. Define a MAP_DONTCOPY to mmap: we have a fine tradition of MAP_flags > > > to achieve this or that effect, adding one more would be cleaner than > > > now corrupting mprotect or madvise. > > > > They are both relying on the way user allocates memory for RDMA. The idea > > behind Michael's propose it to let library (MPI for instance) to tell to the > > kernel that the pages are used for RDMA and it is not safe to copy them > > now. > > The pages may be anywhere in the process address space bss, text, stack > > whatever. > > That's a nice aim, but I don't think it can quite be done in the face of > the fork issue - one way or another, we have to change the behaviour of a > forked RDMA area slightly, which might interfere with common assumptions. > > Your stack example is a good one: if we end up setting VM_DONTCOPY on > the user stack, then I don't think fork's child will get very far without > hitting a SIGSEGV. I know, but I prefer child SIGSEGV than silent data corruption. In most cases child will exec immediately after fork so no problem in this case.
-- Gleb. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/