[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] userfaultfd: Add feature to request for a signal delivery
On Wed 28-06-17 11:23:32, Prakash Sangappa wrote:
> On 6/28/17 6:18 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >I've just been thinking that maybe it would be possible to use
> >UFFD_EVENT_REMOVE for this case. We anyway need to implement the generation
> >of UFFD_EVENT_REMOVE for the case of hole punching in hugetlbfs for
> >non-cooperative userfaultfd. It could be that it will solve your issue as
> >well.
> >
> Will this result in a signal delivery?
> In the use case described, the database application does not need any event
> for hole punching. Basically, just a signal for any invalid access to
> mapped area over holes in the file.

OK, but it would be better to think that through for other potential
usecases so that this doesn't end up as a single hugetlb feature. E.g.
what should happen if a regular anonymous memory gets swapped out?
Should we deliver signal as well? How does userspace tell whether this
was a no backing page from unavailable backing page?
Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-29 10:09    [W:0.071 / U:7.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site