From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com (mail-lb0-f170.google.com [209.85.217.170]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443356B0035 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 02:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id l4so9172946lbv.29 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x22f.google.com (mail-la0-x22f.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::22f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vp9si40687861lbc.41.2014.08.21.23.33.33 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:33:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id mc6so9475957lab.20 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:33:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:33:31 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: softdirty: write protect PTEs created for read faults after VM_SOFTDIRTY cleared Message-ID: <20140822063331.GJ14072@moon> References: <1408571182-28750-1-git-send-email-pfeiner@google.com> <20140820234543.GA7987@node.dhcp.inet.fi> <20140821193737.GC16042@google.com> <20140821205115.GH14072@moon> <20140821213942.GA15218@node.dhcp.inet.fi> <20140821214601.GD16042@google.com> <20140821215147.GA15482@node.dhcp.inet.fi> <20140821225033.GE16042@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140821225033.GE16042@google.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Feiner Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Emelyanov , Jamie Liu , Hugh Dickins , Naoya Horiguchi , Andrew Morton , Magnus Damm On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 06:50:33PM -0400, Peter Feiner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:51:47AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > One thing: there could be (I haven't checked) complications on > > > > vma_merge(): since vm_flags are identical it assumes that it can reuse > > > > vma->vm_page_prot of expanded vma. But VM_SOFTDIRTY is excluded from > > > > vm_flags compatibility check. What should we do with vm_page_prot there? > > > > > > Since the merged VMA will have VM_SOFTDIRTY set, it's OK that it's vm_page_prot > > > won't be setup for write notifications. For the purpose of process migration, > > > you'll just get some false positives, which is tolerable. > > > > Right. But should we disable writenotify back to avoid exessive wp-faults > > if it was enabled due to soft-dirty (the case when expanded vma is > > soft-dirty)? > > Ah, I understand now. I've got a patch in the works that disables the write > faults when a VMA is merged. I'll send a series with all of the changes > tomorrow. Cool! Thanks a lot, guys! -- 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: email@kvack.org