Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Jul 2004 21:21:53 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [BUG] hugetlb MAP_PRIVATE mapping vs /dev/zero |
| |
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:49:37PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: >> Duh, sorry, misread the sense of the VM_SHARED test in the zeromap >> code.
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:12:15PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > On second thoughts, though, I think logically it should be fixed in > both places. For now forcing VM_SHARED in the hugetlbfs code is > sufficient, but if we ever allow (real) MAP_PRIVATE hugepage mappings > (by implementing hugepage COW, for example), then the zeromap code > will need fixing. > Conceptually it's not so much the fact that the hugepage memory is > shared which is tripping up zeromap as the fact that it isn't mapped > in the normal way. > Of course, one could argue that the whole zeromap idea is just too > damn clever for its own good...
Better that there should be a zeromap_hugepage_range() than pollution of random pseudodrivers.
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |