Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:19:04 +0100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [patch 4/6] mm: merge populate and nopage into fault (fixes nonlinear) |
| |
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: > On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:02, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, tmpfs/shm segs are what I was thinking about. If UML can live with > > > that as well, then I think it might be a good option. > > > > Oh, hmm.... if you can truncate these things then you still need to > > force unmap so you still need i_mmap_nonlinear. > > Well, we don't need truncate(), but MADV_REMOVE for memory hotunplug, which is > way similar I guess. > > About the restriction to tmpfs, I have just discovered > '[PATCH] mm: tracking shared dirty pages' (commit > d08b3851da41d0ee60851f2c75b118e1f7a5fc89), which already partially conflicts > with remap_file_pages for file-based mmaps (and that's fully fine, for now). > > Even if UML does not need it, till now if there is a VMA protection and a page > hasn't been remapped with remap_file_pages, the VMA protection is used (just > because it makes sense). > > However, it is only used when the PTE is first created - we can never change > protections on a VMA - so it vma_wants_writenotify() is true (on all > file-based and on no shmfs based mapping, right?), and we write-protect the > VMA, it will always be write-protected.
Yes, I believe that is the case, however I wonder if that is going to be a problem for you to distinguish between write faults for clean writable ptes, and write faults for readonly ptes?
> That's no problem for UML, but for any other user (I guess I'll have to > prevent callers from trying such stuff - I started from a pretty generic > patch). > > > But come to think of it, I still don't think nonlinear mappings are > > too bad as they are ;) > > Btw, I really like removing ->populate and merging the common code together. > filemap_populate and shmem_populate are so obnoxiously different that I > already wanted to do that (after merging remap_file_pages() core).
Yeah they are also frustratingly similar to filemap_nopage and shmem_nopage, and duplicate a lot of the same code ;)
> Also, I'm curious. Since my patches are already changing remap_file_pages() > code, should they be absolutely merged after yours?
Is there a big clash? I don't think I did a great deal to fremap.c (mainly just removing stuff)... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |