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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200123014627.71720-1-bgeffon@google.com> <20200124190625.257659-1-bgeffon@google.com>
 <20200126220650.i4lwljpvohpgvsi2@box> <CADyq12xCK_3MhGi88Am5P6DVZvrW8vqtyJMHO0zjNhvhYegm1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200129104655.egvpavc2tzozlbqe@box>
In-Reply-To: <20200129104655.egvpavc2tzozlbqe@box>
From:   Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:03:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CADyq12ysX9Ce+CUr=Cs-LcYrJDeYubDfZy2-GYFHAz111J8QBA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Add MREMAP_DONTUNMAP to mremap().
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@google.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Kirill,

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:46 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill@shutemov.name> wrote:
> And based on the use case you probably don't really need 'fixed'
> semantics all the time. The user should be fine with moving the mapping
> *somewhere*, not neccessary to the given address

This is true and and it simplifies things a bit as for the outlined
use cases the user would not be required to mmap the destination
before hand. Part of the reason I chose to require MREMAP_FIXED was
because mremap need not move the mapping if it can shrink/grow in
place and it seemed a bit awkward to have "MUSTMOVE" behavior without
MAP_FIXED. I'll make this change to drop the requirement on
MREMAP_FIXED in my next patch.

> BTW, name of the flag is confusing. My initial reaction was that it is
> variant of MREMAP_FIXED that does't anything at the target address.
> Like MAP_FIXED vs. MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE.
>
> Any better options for the flag name? (I have none)

I see your point. Perhaps MREMAP_MOVEPAGES or MREMAP_KEEP_SOURCE? I
struggle to come up with a single name that encapsulates this behavior
but I'll try to think of other ideas before I mail the next patch.
Given that we will drop the requirement on MREMAP_FIXED, perhaps
MOVEPAGES is the better option as it captures that the mapping WILL be
moved?

Thanks again for taking the time to look at this.

Best,
Brian