From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f52.google.com (mail-ed1-f52.google.com [209.85.208.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47D24242D66; Wed, 21 May 2025 16:57:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747846673; cv=none; b=XwZgOLiTOO5z9Nl5fc729edObnlMWBD3wqGTXz2kWHA2bIo8tDSZtM5kXgUw6F2R4+zQWCEcqA7FdTxg2yqbDvE6dXmaDKbZNfkLaYM8IvXT+VE8dRoNM6FuaSCvdYo+dx5HrlwUS6mus4xQy6QP5W0+qAjE/vhmb9PPxzGn5lc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747846673; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/GlespiNmMT4+BqUyJVqesFiv1fxp1eFp6PVyIszOPY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Jh2nBeV+oS5+6b8lt5WTcRmMT9KBtk6/wstiCJzVufK5LRKXhOrRX8N52C3s8MsUDa+4UNxyQdZhpSvZZTqus/qkZqEVOllEy7yG9AuxV7VYIug0IFnit57OPZI2ZNACjFF1h0r+VRNxzOdtRIX9Uha0JJyiOQmSWSHtDrrHL7s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=X9ea8YYD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="X9ea8YYD" Received: by mail-ed1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-601fb2b7884so5621133a12.2; Wed, 21 May 2025 09:57:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1747846669; x=1748451469; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BRYUFAK7jSYA/NtgtlJwU68PcUllDyACt8wTHZPGFbo=; b=X9ea8YYD6gpMKdelTo7bkq4hdKBGgOeE3uoSgg6S5SI3YunUvYHIh4uQsld19vzWHN 50fgut1ljwBbVG89fKmWmKWsDb2bR18V8K+IAEpiRrB5jAyCngK7Fsbr0Hm7TZYwbccy 3NNQwgB5MTzVyiMs1IGdr7AT5VNqd+VhlAcUF9/6CluAZAN9mB0qvn8zhf4eJBL2RMRy glrF0ZArrYfkYVxF/ZLeh/rA0Op+nRj2FZ/KIlk0zDWs7dO8OtqOqK2esJYyooOR8V1v NWxvjtgE4W+KB7cw2bFkWeDZk2IkS6sCmybOl/3sWCAa3bu+RSI1y1VYY0CTG8cjb5Cz Zdvg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1747846669; x=1748451469; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BRYUFAK7jSYA/NtgtlJwU68PcUllDyACt8wTHZPGFbo=; b=g2r6RegZa0gqBNGl4B94TvBTY0F2LVYn08v4slypWJGU/PHDa3Bb+VrkDl9VWh47AA uH+TPS9Cs9gPcDkqqQ8a4hsiy575JTWLKBeXbQNrR6mJoIxq2YVItGKD+Ngu4e31b8VF t54XBSI4d/1v1lqOrohL54BAifYRvcbhMGHf6qW8mpGQjZoGZtDb11hFQD3TrOStG74t y2Tq6/jHsFgQe/WOlTupEBSqG73hkaAv6VH/x9v6kcXW1yvP7bgJCdCQckBORqtngWbp //lSUy4FzIEBWb857dfSYFR1sWfN8eiR+JBgN+n/eS1B75dTb5Oe75UGqhB6awa1kcgs Q7fw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU2VKYHNmjmJiaTM8V5AwXFCBuoZXqaamgeKB5PFdZtvvJhZZ/ZCHkhefmVTuQQCm06PiA64D4t+ZhlaF1D@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCXEzJT5/dkjB1uImUN5RVVwl51LjsJXSRbE92QacX0mbM64rJrXn3N3ld+YmH/mdpbNVC4mlKs7GfX1@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz+Va+gGbDu+fzSVKsmCG1xUwUio7qxmoqAkct68yfAU/BEKb8P QUuf64VkYU0s5yXYb7o3riZC4yO28cbMyhVC8j0KaQ8x6gPQNgronD8r X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctm7tiulXyykU6+9r08axqBQw9S+aYTFhqT0YIep7PYsX0jeEqXPSOj1g4kO9u QWNBuXUjFcW2S+jsyDOj+IHSTQEYaMAIdVsO/+a8+f+ydiuQi6JZnzONXe4DqcOuMYTvax8W3Vq RgF/EGWpXE8Egrzj//2pAhbOfyRDTLsFrBsbT+SshvGRs4VANKECT4fA4WCG47VdU24b6ij/SLR VehJFoz7SrDRItnOM3x++ww/ydCAStv9g76Kt+CgjOJ+WDTNbeZvKOyjzMj+B7uhi4lxLAwZnGn vrV66t1oLf4AmsrlPsWUQnJ3+WxH0O73BXG44tPvfNQvdObu13oA4JR6Nd6M4SzcQXARD9AZOa9 0LyrRdVrpMBNIsb8yMZXVSAhxtCFmEMKXJZDoVQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHSvbQT6sn4S7mMgkqSNKRdTOlaQgHRPK4MjnFPlaTQGercmFbLQYTx5FF7F5wgccYvySsRbw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1e89:b0:600:9f83:c314 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-60119cc7219mr19075932a12.26.1747846669303; Wed, 21 May 2025 09:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2620:10d:c096:325:8d0:f08c:4e6a:b32f? ([2620:10d:c092:600::8a7e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-6005ac336d5sm9221196a12.54.2025.05.21.09.57.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 May 2025 09:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 17:57:48 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] add process_madvise() flags to modify behaviour To: Shakeel Butt , Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Andrew Morton , "Liam R . Howlett" , David Hildenbrand , Vlastimil Babka , Jann Horn , Arnd Bergmann , Christian Brauner , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, SeongJae Park References: <7tzfy4mmbo2utodqr5clk24mcawef5l2gwrgmnp5jmqxmhkpav@jpzaaoys6jro> <5604190c-3309-4cb8-b746-2301615d933c@lucifer.local> <226owobtknee4iirb7sdm3hs26u4nvytdugxgxtz23kcrx6tzg@nryescaj266u> <7a214bee-d184-460f-88d6-2249b9d513ba@lucifer.local> Content-Language: en-US From: Usama Arif In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 21/05/2025 17:28, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 05:21:19AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: >> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 03:02:09PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: >> > [...] >> >> So, something Liam mentioned off-list was the beautifully named >> 'mmadvise()'. Idea being that we have a system call _explicitly for_ >> mm-wide modifications. >> >> With Barry's series doing a prctl() for something similar, and a whole host >> of mm->flags existing for modifying behaviour, it would seem a natural fit. >> >> I could do a respin that does something like this instead. >> > > Please let's first get consensus on this before starting the work. > > Usama, David, Johannes and others, WDYT? > I would like that. Introducing another method might make the conversation a lot more complex than it already is? I have addressed the feedback from Lorenzo for the prctl series, but am holding back sending it as RFC v4. The v3 has a NACK on it so I would imagine it would discourage people from reviewing it. If we are still progressing with sending patches, would it make sense for me to wait a couple of days to see if there are any more comments on it and send the RFC v4?