On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Till Smejkal <till.smej...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> This sounds rather complicated. Getting TLB flushing right seems >> tricky. Why not just map the same thing into multiple mms? > > This is exactly what happens at the end. The memory region that is described > by the > VAS segment will be mapped in the ASes that use the segment.
So why is this kernel feature better than just doing MAP_SHARED manually in userspace? >> Ick. Please don't do this. Can we please keep an mm as just an mm >> and not make it look magically different depending on which process >> maps it? If you need a trampoline (which you do, of course), just >> write a trampoline in regular user code and map it manually. > > Did I understand you correctly that you are proposing that the switching > thread > should make sure by itself that its code, stack, … memory regions are > properly setup > in the new AS before/after switching into it? I think, this would make using > first > class virtual address spaces much more difficult for user applications to the > extend > that I am not even sure if they can be used at all. At the moment, switching > into a > VAS is a very simple operation for an application because the kernel will > just simply > do the right thing. Yes. I think that having the same mm_struct look different from different tasks is problematic. Getting it right in the arch code is going to be nasty. The heuristics of what to share are also tough -- why would text + data + stack or whatever you're doing be adequate? What if you're in a thread? What if two tasks have their stacks in the same place? I could imagine something like a sigaltstack() mode that lets you set a signal up to also switch mm could be useful. _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
