From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755515Ab2LRSxK (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:53:10 -0500 Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.145.42]:44494 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751348Ab2LRSxI (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:53:08 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 1018 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:53:08 EST Message-ID: <50D0B5A2.2010707@fb.com> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:27:46 -0800 From: Arun Sharma User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Minchan Kim CC: Andrew Morton , , , Michael Kerrisk , , Paul Turner , David Rientjes , John Stultz , Christoph Lameter , Android Kernel Team , Robert Love , Mel Gorman , Hugh Dickins , Dave Hansen , Rik van Riel , Dave Chinner , Neil Brown , Mike Hommey , Taras Glek , KOSAKI Motohiro , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC v4 0/3] Support volatile for anonymous range References: <1355813274-571-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <1355813274-571-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.16.4] X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.9.8327,1.0.431,0.0.0000 definitions=2012-12-18_08:2012-12-18,2012-12-18,1970-01-01 signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/17/12 10:47 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > I hope more inputs from user-space allocator people and test patch > with their allocator because it might need design change of arena > management for getting real vaule. jemalloc knows how to handle MADV_FREE on platforms that support it. This looks similar (we'll need a SIGBUS handler that does the right thing = zero the page + mark it as non-volatile in the common case). All of this of course assumes that apps madvise the kernel through APIs exposed by the malloc implementation - not via a raw syscall. In other words, some new user space code needs to be written to test this out fully. Sounds feasible though. -Arun