Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752159AbdF2IJW (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 04:09:22 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38514 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751647AbdF2IJO (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 04:09:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:09:10 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Prakash Sangappa Cc: Mike Rapoport , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrea Arcangeli , Mike Kravetz , Dave Hansen , Christoph Hellwig , linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] userfaultfd: Add feature to request for a signal delivery Message-ID: <20170629080910.GC31603@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <9363561f-a9cd-7ab6-9c11-ab9a99dc89f1@oracle.com> <20170627070643.GA28078@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170627153557.GB10091@rapoport-lnx> <51508e99-d2dd-894f-8d8a-678e3747c1ee@oracle.com> <20170628131806.GD10091@rapoport-lnx> <3a8e0042-4c49-3ec8-c59f-9036f8e54621@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3a8e0042-4c49-3ec8-c59f-9036f8e54621@oracle.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1006 Lines: 26 On Wed 28-06-17 11:23:32, Prakash Sangappa wrote: > > > On 6/28/17 6:18 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote: [...] > >I've just been thinking that maybe it would be possible to use > >UFFD_EVENT_REMOVE for this case. We anyway need to implement the generation > >of UFFD_EVENT_REMOVE for the case of hole punching in hugetlbfs for > >non-cooperative userfaultfd. It could be that it will solve your issue as > >well. > > > > Will this result in a signal delivery? > > In the use case described, the database application does not need any event > for hole punching. Basically, just a signal for any invalid access to > mapped area over holes in the file. OK, but it would be better to think that through for other potential usecases so that this doesn't end up as a single hugetlb feature. E.g. what should happen if a regular anonymous memory gets swapped out? Should we deliver signal as well? How does userspace tell whether this was a no backing page from unavailable backing page? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs