Re: [PATCH 0/3] Volatile Ranges (v11)

2014-03-20 Thread Minchan Kim
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 09:13:59AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 20-03-14 10:09:54, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:12:02AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Wed 19-03-14 09:49:18, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:07:50AM -0700, John Stultz wro

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Volatile Ranges (v11)

2014-03-20 Thread Jan Kara
On Thu 20-03-14 10:09:54, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:12:02AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 19-03-14 09:49:18, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:07:50AM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Volatile Ranges (v11)

2014-03-20 Thread Minchan Kim
Hello Dave, On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 05:38:10PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 03/18/2014 05:24 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 14-03-14 11:33:30, John Stultz wrote: > > [...] > >> Volatile ranges provides a method for userland to inform the kernel that > >> a range of memory is safe to discard

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Volatile Ranges (v11)

2014-03-19 Thread Minchan Kim
Hello, On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:12:02AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 19-03-14 09:49:18, Minchan Kim wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:07:50AM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > 1) SIGBUS > > > > > > > > It's one of the arguable iss

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Volatile Ranges (v11)

2014-03-19 Thread John Stultz
On 03/19/2014 05:38 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 03/18/2014 05:24 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Fri 14-03-14 11:33:30, John Stultz wrote: >> [...] >>> Volatile ranges provides a method for userland to inform the kernel that >>> a range of memory is safe to discard (ie: can be regenerated) but >>> us

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Volatile Ranges (v11)

2014-03-19 Thread Dave Hansen
On 03/18/2014 05:24 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 14-03-14 11:33:30, John Stultz wrote: > [...] >> Volatile ranges provides a method for userland to inform the kernel that >> a range of memory is safe to discard (ie: can be regenerated) but >> userspace may want to try access it in the future.

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Volatile Ranges (v11)

2014-03-19 Thread Jan Kara
On Wed 19-03-14 09:49:18, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:07:50AM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > 1) SIGBUS > > > > > > It's one of the arguable issue because some user want to get a > > > SIGBUS(ex, Firefox) while other want

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Volatile Ranges (v11)

2014-03-18 Thread John Stultz
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > 1) SIGBUS > > It's one of the arguable issue because some user want to get a > SIGBUS(ex, Firefox) while other want a just zero page(ex, Google > address sanitizer) without signal so it should be option. > > int vrange(start, len, VRANG

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Volatile Ranges (v11)

2014-03-18 Thread John Stultz
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 14-03-14 11:33:30, John Stultz wrote: > [...] >> Volatile ranges provides a method for userland to inform the kernel that >> a range of memory is safe to discard (ie: can be regenerated) but >> userspace may want to try access it in the

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Volatile Ranges (v11)

2014-03-18 Thread Minchan Kim
Hello John, Sorry for late. Timing between us is always not good. I say my thought although I don't prepare whole thing in my brain since you sent out the patchset(Anyway, we should share ideas before the LSF/MM) On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:33:30AM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > I recently got a chan

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Volatile Ranges (v11)

2014-03-18 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 14-03-14 11:33:30, John Stultz wrote: [...] > Volatile ranges provides a method for userland to inform the kernel that > a range of memory is safe to discard (ie: can be regenerated) but > userspace may want to try access it in the future. It can be thought of > as similar to MADV_DONTNEED,

[PATCH 0/3] Volatile Ranges (v11)

2014-03-14 Thread John Stultz
I recently got a chance to try to implement Johannes' suggested approach so I wanted to send it out for comments. It looks like Minchan has also done the same, but from a different direction, focusing on the MADV_FREE use cases. I think both approaches are valid, so I wouldn't consider these patche