On Thu, 7 Mar 2019, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> > >
> > > addr = 4095
> > > vma->vm_end = 4096
> > > pages = 1000
> > >
> > > then `end' is 4096 and `(end - addr) << PAGE_SHIFT' is zero, but it
> > > should have been 1.
> >
> > Good catch! It should rather be something like
> >
> >
Jiri Kosina wrote on Thu, Mar 07, 2019:
> > I'm not sure this is correct in all cases. If
> >
> > addr = 4095
> > vma->vm_end = 4096
> > pages = 1000
> >
> > then `end' is 4096 and `(end - addr) << PAGE_SHIFT' is zero, but it
> > should have been 1.
>
> Good catch! It should
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The semantics of what mincore() considers to be resident is not completely
> > clear, but Linux has always (since 2.3.52, which is when mincore() was
> > initially done) treated it as "page is available in page cache".
> >
> > That's potentially a
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 13:44:18 +0100 Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> From: Jiri Kosina
>
> The semantics of what mincore() considers to be resident is not completely
> clear, but Linux has always (since 2.3.52, which is when mincore() was
> initially done) treated it as "page is available in page
Here's updated version with Michal's suggestion, and acks:
I think this patch is fine to go, less sure about 2/3 and 3/3.
8<
>From 49f17d9f6a42ecc2a508125b0c880ff0402a6f49 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jiri Kosina
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 20:53:17 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2] mm/mincore:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:44 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> One thing is still not clear to me though. Is the new owner/writeable
> check OK for the Netflix-like usecases? I mean does happycache have
> appropriate access to the cache data? I have tried to re-read the
> original thread but couldn't find
Michal Hocko wrote on Thu, Jan 31, 2019:
> > Change the semantics of mincore() so that it only reveals pagecache
> > information
> > for non-anonymous mappings that belog to files that the calling process
> > could
> > (if it tried to) successfully open for writing.
>
> I agree that this is a
On Wed 30-01-19 13:44:18, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> From: Jiri Kosina
>
> The semantics of what mincore() considers to be resident is not completely
> clear, but Linux has always (since 2.3.52, which is when mincore() was
> initially done) treated it as "page is available in page cache".
>
>
From: Jiri Kosina
The semantics of what mincore() considers to be resident is not completely
clear, but Linux has always (since 2.3.52, which is when mincore() was
initially done) treated it as "page is available in page cache".
That's potentially a problem, as that [in]directly exposes
9 matches
Mail list logo
