Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 8 Jun 2018 12:57:17 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/madvise: allow MADV_DONTNEED to free memory that is
 MLOCK_ONFAULT
Message-Id: <20180608125717.c34d3e7125c62fc91ac427c8@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1528484212-7199-1-git-send-email-jbaron@akamai.com>
References: <1528484212-7199-1-git-send-email-jbaron@akamai.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri,  8 Jun 2018 14:56:52 -0400 Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com> wrote:

> In order to free memory that is marked MLOCK_ONFAULT, the memory region
> needs to be first unlocked, before calling MADV_DONTNEED. And if the region
> is to be reused as MLOCK_ONFAULT, we require another call to mlock2() with
> the MLOCK_ONFAULT flag.
> 
> Let's simplify freeing memory that is set MLOCK_ONFAULT, by allowing
> MADV_DONTNEED to work directly for memory that is set MLOCK_ONFAULT. The
> locked memory limits, tracked by mm->locked_vm do not need to be adjusted
> in this case, since they were charged to the entire region when
> MLOCK_ONFAULT was initially set.

Seems useful.

Is a manpage update planned?

Various updates to tools/testing/selftests/vm/* seem appropriate.

> Further, I don't think allowing MADV_FREE for MLOCK_ONFAULT regions makes
> sense, since the point of MLOCK_ONFAULT is for userspace to know when pages
> are locked in memory and thus to know when page faults will occur.

This sounds non-backward-compatible?