From: Arun Sharma <asharma@fb.com>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Enable MAP_UNINITIALIZED for archs with mmu
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:32:42 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F4BCC4A.1090402@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCnznyZGLiZPNS151GzsUMApN_SYu3n6xX9E0ceMpq9JNq7w@mail.gmail.com>
On 2/24/12 8:13 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> A uid based approach such as the one implemented by Davide Libenzi
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/548928
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/548926
>>
>> would probably apply the optimization to more use cases - but conceptually a
>> bit more complex. If we go with this more relaxed approach, we'll have to
>> design a race-free cgroup_uid_count() based mechanism.
>
> Are you suggesting all processes with the same UID should have access
> to each others memory contents?
No - that's a stronger statement than the one I made in my last message.
I'll however observe that something like this is already possible via
PTRACE_PEEKDATA.
Like I said: a cgroup with a single mm_struct is conceptually cleanest
and covers some of our heavy use cases. A cgroup with a single uid would
cover more of our use cases. It'd be good to know if you and other
maintainers are willing to accept the former, but not the latter.
I'll note that the malloc implementation which uses these interfaces can
still decide to zero the memory depending on which variant of *alloc is
called. But then, we'd have more fine grained control and more
flexibility in terms of temporal usage hints.
-Arun
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-27 18:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-18 18:51 Arun Sharma
2012-01-19 2:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-01-24 0:54 ` Arun Sharma
2012-01-24 3:07 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-01-25 1:45 ` Arun Sharma
2012-02-22 0:34 ` Arun Sharma
2012-02-23 7:45 ` Balbir Singh
2012-02-23 18:42 ` Arun Sharma
2012-02-24 2:47 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-02-24 14:51 ` Balbir Singh
2012-02-24 19:11 ` Arun Sharma
2012-02-25 4:13 ` Balbir Singh
2012-02-27 18:32 ` Arun Sharma [this message]
2012-02-24 19:26 ` Arun Sharma
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F4BCC4A.1090402@fb.com \
--to=asharma@fb.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox