Re: Should mmap MAP_LOCKED fail if mm_poppulate fails?

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>]

On Tue 28-04-15 11:38:35, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote:
> >
> > I am still not sure I see the problem here.
> 
> Basically, I absolutely hate the notion of us doing something
> unsynchronized, when I can see us undoing a mmap that another thread
> is doing. It's wrong.
> 
> You also didn't react to all the *other* things that were wrong in
> that patch-set. The games you play with !fatal_signal_pending() etc
> are just crazy.

I planed to get to those later, because I felt the locks vs. racing
mmaps argument was the most important objection.

> End result: I absolutely detest the whole thing. I told you what I
> consider an acceptable solution instead, that is much simpler and
> doesn't have any of the problems of your patchset.

I will surely think about those. As I've written in the cover email
already, I am fine with patching the man page and be clear about a long
term behavior. The primary motivation for this RFC was to start the
discussion.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>