From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To: Jeff Smith <jsmith.lkml@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Kenny Simpson <theonetruekenny@gmail.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: remap_file_pages() use
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 12:42:40 +0300 (EEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140526094240.B5508E009B@blue.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAih0NjpHKc11JfG3MOnvisXesg-LoaS0Cx1rOA5ggDEHNfY6g@mail.gmail.com>
Jeff Smith wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:35:40PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >> >From functional POV, emulation *should* be identical to original
> >> remap_file_pages(), but slower. It would be nice, if you test it early.
> >>
> >> It's not clear yet how long emulation will be there.
> >
> > Stop right there. We found out about two real life users of
> > remap_file_pages() already, without even committing the patches to warn
> > about using it to any tree.
> >
> > I think at this point the whole idea of removing the API should be dead
> > on the floor, as we do not needlessly break userspace programs.
> >
> > If we can get rid of the ugly guts and provide a good enough emulation
> > that the user won't cry I'd love to get rid of this cruft, but even
> > that doesn't look certain yet.
>
> Sorry for being late to the party, but I just noticed this proposal
> via the LWN summary byline.
>
> I wanted to comment that Kenny's use case is (I believe) quite
> widespread. I've used the technique since ~2008, and I've come across
> other people in subsequent jobs who independently developed the same
> technique. Mirrored mapping is absolutely required by several
> independent proprietary platforms I'm aware of, and remap_file_pages()
> has historically been the only sane way to accomplish this. (i.e.,
> shm_open(), mmap(NULL, 2^(n+1) pages), remap_file_pages() on 2nd
> half).
Em.. What's wrong with shm_open() + two mmap()s to cover both halfs?
fd = shm_open();
addr1 = mmap(NULL, 2*SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
addr2 = mmap(addr1 + SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED | MAP_FIXED, fd, 0);
Is there a reason why it doens't work?
> It may not be individuals who are involved in the kernel development
> scene to any great extent, but I am sure that remap_file_pages() being
> deprecated would seriously piss off a lot of individuals. The pattern
> has even had a section in the Wikipedia article for quite some time:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_buffer#Mirroring
I believe remap_file_pages() is abused here. But it seems we will have to
keep emulation in place for a long time.
>
> It would be most preferable from a user standpoint to keep the
> existing system intact, but failing that, a reservation API would need
> to be created (possibly a MAP_RESERVE flag) that would set aside a
> region that could only be subsequently mapped via explicit
> address-requesting mmap() calls.
I don't get this part.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-26 9:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-18 4:03 Kenny Simpson
2014-05-19 13:01 ` Michal Hocko
2014-05-19 14:35 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-05-19 14:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-05-19 15:02 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-05-19 15:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-05-19 15:17 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-05-19 15:42 ` Armin Rigo
2014-05-19 15:53 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-05-19 16:42 ` Armin Rigo
2014-05-19 17:50 ` Dave Hansen
2014-05-19 22:05 ` Armin Rigo
2014-05-19 16:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-05-19 19:14 ` Richard Weinberger
2014-05-26 0:19 ` Jeff Smith
2014-05-26 9:42 ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2014-05-26 13:24 ` Jeff Smith
2014-05-26 13:35 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-05-26 13:38 ` Jeff Smith
2014-05-26 13:47 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-05-26 13:52 ` Jeff Smith
2014-05-26 14:16 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-05-26 13:37 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-05-19 17:34 ` Kenny Simpson
2014-05-19 21:24 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-05-21 1:53 ` Kenny Simpson
2014-05-21 3:56 ` Kenny Simpson
2014-05-21 4:32 ` Hugh Dickins
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=20140526094240.B5508E009B@blue.fi.intel.com \
--to=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jsmith.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=theonetruekenny@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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
Powered by JetHome