lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm,mremap: Bail out earlier in mremap_to under map pressure
From
Date
On 2/27/19 10:32 PM, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:04:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> How is this going to affect existing userspace which is aware of the
>> current behaviour?
>
> Well, current behavior is not really predictable.
> Our customer was "surprised" that the call to mremap() failed, but the regions
> got unmapped nevertheless.
> They found it the hard way when they got a segfault when trying to write to those
> regions when cleaning up.
>
> As I said in the changelog, the possibility for false positives exists, due to
> the fact that we might get rid of several vma's when unmapping, but I do not
> expect existing userspace applications to start failing.
> Should be that the case, we can revert the patch, it is not that it adds a lot
> of churn.

Hopefully the only program that would start failing would be a LTP test
testing the current behavior near the limit (if such test exists). And
that can be adjusted.

>> And how does it affect your existing cleanup code, come to that? Does
>> it work as well or better after this change?
>
> I guess the customer can trust more reliable that the maps were left untouched.
> I still have my reserves though.
>
> We can get as far as move_vma(), and copy_vma() can fail returning -ENOMEM.
> (Or not due to the "too small to fail" ?)
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-28 09:07    [W:2.587 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site