Re: [PATCH 05/14] vrange: Add new vrange(2) system call

H. Peter Anvin
2013-10-08T01:26:45Z

On 10/07/2013 05:13 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>
>> The point is that MADV_DONTNEED is very similar in that sense,
>> especially if allowed to be lazy. It makes a lot of sense to permit
>> both scrubbing modes orthogonally.
>>
>> The point you're making has to do with withdrawal of permission to flush
>> on demand, which is a result of having the lazy mode (ongoing
>> permission) and having to be able to withdraw such permission.
>
> I'm sorry I could not understand what you wanted to say.
> Could you elaborate a bit?
>

Basically, you need this because of MADV_LAZY or the equivalent, so it
would be applicable to a similar variant of madvise().

As such I would suggest that an madvise4() call would be appropriate.

-hpa