From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S966168AbbD1Uga (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:36:30 -0400
Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:33087 "EHLO
	mail-wg0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S966059AbbD1Ug2 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:36:28 -0400
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:36:25 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Should mmap MAP_LOCKED fail if mm_poppulate fails?
Message-ID: <20150428203625.GA9664@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20150114095019.GC4706@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <1430223111-14817-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz>
 <CA+55aFxzLXx=cC309h_tEc-Gkn_zH4ipR7PsefVcE-97Uj066g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150428164302.GI2659@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CA+55aFydkG-BgZzry5DrTzueVh9VvEcVJdLV8iOyUphQk=0vpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150428183535.GB30918@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CA+55aFyajquhGhw59qNWKGK4dBV0TPmDD7-1XqPo7DZWvO_hPg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyajquhGhw59qNWKGK4dBV0TPmDD7-1XqPo7DZWvO_hPg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue 28-04-15 11:38:35, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote:
> >
> > I am still not sure I see the problem here.
> 
> Basically, I absolutely hate the notion of us doing something
> unsynchronized, when I can see us undoing a mmap that another thread
> is doing. It's wrong.
> 
> You also didn't react to all the *other* things that were wrong in
> that patch-set. The games you play with !fatal_signal_pending() etc
> are just crazy.

I planed to get to those later, because I felt the locks vs. racing
mmaps argument was the most important objection.

> End result: I absolutely detest the whole thing. I told you what I
> consider an acceptable solution instead, that is much simpler and
> doesn't have any of the problems of your patchset.

I will surely think about those. As I've written in the cover email
already, I am fine with patching the man page and be clear about a long
term behavior. The primary motivation for this RFC was to start the
discussion.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs