From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755080Ab0ANHCr (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:02:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754904Ab0ANHCq (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:02:46 -0500 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:55270 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751071Ab0ANHCp (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:02:45 -0500 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] add MAP_UNLOCKED mmap flag Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: <20100114065008.GC18808@redhat.com> References: <20100114092845.D719.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100114065008.GC18808@redhat.com> Message-Id: <20100114155229.6735.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.07 [ja] Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:02:42 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:31:03AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > If application does mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) it is no longer possible to mmap > > > file bigger than main memory or allocate big area of anonymous memory > > > in a thread safe manner. Sometimes it is desirable to lock everything > > > related to program execution into memory, but still be able to mmap > > > big file or allocate huge amount of memory and allow OS to swap them on > > > demand. MAP_UNLOCKED allows to do that. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov > > > --- > > > > > > I get reports that people find this useful, so resending. > > > > This description is still wrong. It doesn't describe why this patch is useful. > > > I think the text above describes the feature it adds and its use > case quite well. Can you elaborate what is missing in your opinion, > or suggest alternative text please? My point is, introducing mmap new flags need strong and clearly use-case. All patch should have good benefit/cost balance. the code can describe the cost, but the benefit can be only explained by the patch description. I don't think this poor description explained bit benefit rather than cost. you should explain why this patch is useful and not just pretty toy.