From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9AD276B006A for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:24:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o0K0O79j025642 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:24:08 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF81B45DE5C for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:24:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7761E45DE57 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:24:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD911DB803F for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:24:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7451DB803C for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:24:06 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] add MAP_UNLOCKED mmap flag In-Reply-To: <84144f021001190044s397c6665qb00af48235d2d818@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100119082638.GK14345@redhat.com> <84144f021001190044s397c6665qb00af48235d2d818@mail.gmail.com> Message-Id: <20100120091051.405D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:24:06 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Pekka Enberg Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Gleb Natapov , Alan Cox , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, andrew.c.morrow@gmail.com, "Paul E. McKenney" , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , minchan.kim@gmail.com List-ID: > Hi Gleb, > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> design would still be broken, no? Did you try using (or extending) > >> posix_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) for the guest address space? It seems to > > After mlockall() I can't even allocate guest address space. Or do you mean > > instead of mlockall()? Then how MADV_DONTNEED will help? It just drops > > page table for the address range (which is not what I need) and does not > > have any long time effect. > > Oh right, MADV_DONTNEED is no good. Off topic: posix_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) is nop. glibc's posix_madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) don't call linux's madvise(MADV_DONTNEED). It's because madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) is not POSIX compliant. The behavior of linux madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) is similar to Solaris (or *BSD) madvise(MADV_FREE). -- 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