Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] mm: support madvise(MADV_FREE)

[Daniel Micay <danielmicay-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1522 bytes --]

On 13/11/15 02:03 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:45:52AM -0500, Daniel Micay wrote:
>>> And now I am thinking if we use access bit, we could implment MADV_FREE_UNDO
>>> easily when we need it. Maybe, that's what you want. Right?
>>
>> Yes, but why the access bit instead of the dirty bit for that? It could
>> always be made more strict (i.e. access bit) in the future, while going
>> the other way won't be possible. So I think the dirty bit is really the
>> more conservative choice since if it turns out to be a mistake it can be
>> fixed without a backwards incompatible change.
> 
> Absolutely true. That's why I insist on dirty bit until now although
> I didn't tell the reason. But I thought you wanted to change for using
> access bit for the future, too. It seems MADV_FREE start to bloat
> over and over again before knowing real problems and usecases.
> It's almost same situation with volatile ranges so I really want to
> stop at proper point which maintainer should decide, I hope.
> Without it, we will make the feature a lot heavy by just brain storming
> and then causes lots of churn in MM code without real bebenfit
> It would be very painful for us.

Well, I don't think you need more than a good API and an implementation
with no known bugs, kernel security concerns or backwards compatibility
issues. Configuration and API extensions are something for later (i.e.
land a baseline, then submit stuff like sysctl tunables). Just my take
on it though...


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]