On 01/27/2014 04:12 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:23:17PM -0500, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

- Your number only claimed the effectiveness anon vrange, but not file vrange.

Yes. It's really problem as I said.
>From the beginning, John Stultz wanted to promote vrange-file to replace
android's ashmem and when I heard usecase of vrange-file, it does make sense
to me so that's why I'd like to unify them in a same interface.

But the problem is lack of interesting from others and lack of time to
test/evaluate it. I'm not an expert of userspace so actually I need a bit
help from them who require the feature but at a moment,
but I don't know who really want or/and help it.

Even, Android folks didn't have any interest on vrange-file.

Just as a correction here. I really don't think this is the case, as
Android's use definitely relies on file based volatility. It might be
more fair to say there hasn't been very much discussion from Android
developers on the particulars of the file volatility semantics (out
possibly not having any particular objections, or more-likely, being a
bit too busy to follow the all various theoretical tangents we've
discussed).

But I'd not want anyone to get the impression that anonymous-only
volatility would be sufficient for Android's needs.