From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <vbabka@suse.cz>
Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8BEE1A0688
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 21:23:41 +1000 (AEST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/7] Allow user to request memory to be locked on page
 fault
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Eric B Munson <emunson@akamai.com>
References: <1437773325-8623-1-git-send-email-emunson@akamai.com>
 <55B5F4FF.9070604@suse.cz> <20150727133555.GA17133@akamai.com>
 <55B63D37.20303@suse.cz> <20150727145409.GB21664@akamai.com>
 <20150728111725.GG24972@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>,
 Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
 Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
 linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
 sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Message-ID: <55B76631.6040802@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:23:29 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150728111725.GG24972@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On 07/28/2015 01:17 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [I am sorry but I didn't get to this sooner.]
>
> On Mon 27-07-15 10:54:09, Eric B Munson wrote:
>> Now that VM_LOCKONFAULT is a modifier to VM_LOCKED and
>> cannot be specified independentally, it might make more sense to mirror
>> that relationship to userspace.  Which would lead to soemthing like the
>> following:
>
> A modifier makes more sense.
>
>> To lock and populate a region:
>> mlock2(start, len, 0);
>>
>> To lock on fault a region:
>> mlock2(start, len, MLOCK_ONFAULT);
>>
>> If LOCKONFAULT is seen as a modifier to mlock, then having the flags
>> argument as 0 mean do mlock classic makes more sense to me.
>>
>> To mlock current on fault only:
>> mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_ONFAULT);
>>
>> To mlock future on fault only:
>> mlockall(MCL_FUTURE | MCL_ONFAULT);
>>
>> To lock everything on fault:
>> mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE | MCL_ONFAULT);
>
> Makes sense to me. The only remaining and still tricky part would be
> the munlock{all}(flags) behavior. What should munlock(MLOCK_ONFAULT)
> do? Keep locked and poppulate the range or simply ignore the flag an
> just unlock?

munlock(all) already lost both MLOCK_LOCKED and MLOCK_ONFAULT flags in 
this revision, so I suppose in the next revision it will also not accept 
MLOCK_ONFAULT, and will just munlock whatever was mlocked in either mode.

> I can see some sense to allow munlockall(MCL_FUTURE[|MLOCK_ONFAULT]),
> munlockall(MCL_CURRENT) resp. munlockall(MCL_CURRENT|MCL_FUTURE) but
> other combinations sound weird to me.

The effect of munlockall(MCL_FUTURE|MLOCK_ONFAULT), which you probably 
intended for converting the onfault to full prepopulation for future 
mappings, can be achieved by calling mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) (without 
MLOCK_ONFAULT).

> Anyway munlock with flags opens new doors of trickiness.