lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Add support for shared PTEs across processes
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 01:23:21PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 02:42:12PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > I wounder if we can get away with zero-API here: we can transparently
> > create/use shared page tables for any inode on mmap(MAP_SHARED) as long as
> > size and alignment is sutiable. Page tables will be linked to the inode
> > and will be freed when the last of such mapping will go away. I don't see
> > a need in new syscalls of flags to existing one.
>
> That's how HugeTLBfs works today, right? Would you want that mechanism
> hoisted into the real MM? Because my plan was the opposite -- remove it
> from the shadow MM once mshare() is established.

I hate HugeTLBfs because it is a special place with own rules. mshare() as
it proposed creates a new special place. I don't like this.

It's better to find a way to integrate the feature natively into core-mm
and make as much users as possible to benefit from it.

I think zero-API approach (plus madvise() hints to tweak it) is worth
considering.

--
Kirill A. Shutemov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-25 15:18    [W:0.484 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site