[lkml]   [2017]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Yes, people use FOLL_FORCE ;)
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Keno Fischer <> wrote:
> As I said, personally we can patch our software and deal with this, but I think
> a change like this deserves a bit wider discussion, so may I suggest a revert
> of this change for the time being? Maybe there can be a syslog warning such
> that people who use it will notice and have their say on the mailing list.

Oh, we'll just re-instate the kernel behavior, it was more an
optimistic "maybe nobody will notice" thing, and apparently people did

What I *would* appreciate would be that with the revert, we'd describe
the apps that use FOLL_FORCE, and what they do.

Also, if we can limit it to some simpler cases, that would be good. For example:

(a) if the "punch through" behavior is only used to punch through
read-only mappings, that one thing. It's FOLL_FORCE + FOLL_WRITE that
used to be a nasty case.

But it sounds like your JIT case actually uses it for writing -
but if you can write a small blurb about it, that would be nice.

(b) it would probably be nice to limit FOLL_FORCE in general as much
as possible, so if your case is about writing to your very _own_
memory mapping, as opposed to writing to another process' memory,
maybe we can do something like

if (mm == current->mm)
flags |= FOLL_FORCE;

which at least avoids the whole "let's change the VM in odd ways for a
process that isn't even me".

So no, you should not need any workarounds, but it really would be
good to document what the uses are, and if you are ok with something
like the above that minimizes FOLL_FORCE usage, that would be good.

Mind sending me a patch with a comment or changelog like that?


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-05-30 05:20    [W:0.046 / U:65.216 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site