On 09/25/2017 04:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 25-09-17 15:16:09, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/25/2017 02:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
So, how are you going to deal with the CoW and the implementation which
basically means that the newm mmap content is not the same as the
original one?
I don
On Mon 25-09-17 15:16:09, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/25/2017 02:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > So, how are you going to deal with the CoW and the implementation which
> > basically means that the newm mmap content is not the same as the
> > original one?
>
> I don't understand why CoW would kic
On 09/25/2017 02:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
So, how are you going to deal with the CoW and the implementation which
basically means that the newm mmap content is not the same as the
original one?
I don't understand why CoW would kick in. The approach I outlined is
desirable because it avoids
On Mon 25-09-17 14:40:42, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/25/2017 02:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > What would be the usecase. I mean why don't you simply create a new
> > mapping by a plain mmap when you have no guarantee about the same
> > content?
>
> I plan to use it for creating an unbounded nu
On 09/25/2017 02:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
What would be the usecase. I mean why don't you simply create a new
mapping by a plain mmap when you have no guarantee about the same
content?
I plan to use it for creating an unbounded number of callback thunks at
run time, from a single set of page
On Tue 19-09-17 14:11:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/18/2017 07:11 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
[...]
> > I can drop this wording, but would still like to suggest memfd_create as
> > the preferred method of creating duplicate mappings. It would be good if
> > others on Cc: could comment as well.
>
On 09/18/2017 07:11 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On 09/18/2017 06:45 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/15/2017 11:53 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
+If the value of \fIold_size\fP is zero, and \fIold_address\fP refers to
+a private anonymous mapping, then
+.BR mremap ()
+will create a new mapping of the same
On 09/17/2017 06:52 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> [...]
>> A recent change was made to mremap so that an attempt to create a
>> duplicate a private mapping will fail.
>>
>> commit dba58d3b8c5045ad89c1c95d33d01451e3964db7
>> Author: Mike Kravetz
>> D
On 09/18/2017 06:45 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/15/2017 11:53 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> +If the value of \fIold_size\fP is zero, and \fIold_address\fP refers to
>> +a private anonymous mapping, then
>> +.BR mremap ()
>> +will create a new mapping of the same pages. \fInew_size\fP
>> +will be
On 09/15/2017 11:53 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
+If the value of \fIold_size\fP is zero, and \fIold_address\fP refers to
+a private anonymous mapping, then
+.BR mremap ()
+will create a new mapping of the same pages. \fInew_size\fP
+will be the size of the new mapping and the location of the new mapp
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
[...]
> A recent change was made to mremap so that an attempt to create a
> duplicate a private mapping will fail.
>
> commit dba58d3b8c5045ad89c1c95d33d01451e3964db7
> Author: Mike Kravetz
> Date: Wed Sep 6 16:20:55 2017 -0700
>
> mm/mre
CC: linux-mm
On 09/15/2017 02:37 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Since at least the 2.6 time frame, mremap would create a new mapping
> of the same pages if 'old_size == 0'. It would also leave the original
> mapping. This was used to create a 'duplicate mapping'.
>
> Document the behavior and return
Since at least the 2.6 time frame, mremap would create a new mapping
of the same pages if 'old_size == 0'. It would also leave the original
mapping. This was used to create a 'duplicate mapping'.
Document the behavior and return codes. But, also mention that the
functionality is deprecated and
13 matches
Mail list logo
