Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Izik Eidus wrote:
The main problem that ksm will face when removing the fd interface is:
right now when you register memory into ksm, you open fd, and then ksm
do get_task_mm(), we will do mmput when the file will be closed
Did you test whenever it really cleans
Izik Eidus wrote:
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Did you test whenever it really cleans up in case you kill -9 qemu?
I recently did something simliar with the result that the extra
reference hold on mm_struct prevented the process memory from being
zapped ...
cheers,
Gerd
Did you use mmput()
* Gerd Hoffmann (kra...@redhat.com) wrote:
mmput() call was in -release() callback, -release() in turn never was
called because the kernel didn't zap the mappings because of the
reference ...
Don't have this issue. That mmput() is not tied to zapping mappings,
rather zapping files. IOW, I
Chris Wright wrote:
* Anthony Liguori (anth...@codemonkey.ws) wrote:
Using an interface like madvise() would force the issue to be dealt with
properly from the start :-)
Yeah, I'm not at all opposed to it.
This updates to madvise for register and sysfs for control.
madvise issues:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:31:14PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
- register only ATM, can add MADV_UNSHAREABLE to allow an app to proactively
unregister, but need a cleanup when -mm goes away via exit/exec
The unregister cleanup must happen at the vma level (with unregister
when vma goes
* Andrea Arcangeli (aarca...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:31:14PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
- register only ATM, can add MADV_UNSHAREABLE to allow an app to
proactively
unregister, but need a cleanup when -mm goes away via exit/exec
The unregister cleanup must
* Izik Eidus (iei...@redhat.com) wrote:
Is this what we want?
How about baby steps...
admit that ioctl to control plane is better done via sysfs?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
Chris Wright wrote:
* Izik Eidus (iei...@redhat.com) wrote:
Is this what we want?
How about baby steps...
admit that ioctl to control plane is better done via sysfs?
Yes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to
* Anthony Liguori (anth...@codemonkey.ws) wrote:
Using an interface like madvise() would force the issue to be dealt with
properly from the start :-)
Yeah, I'm not at all opposed to it.
This updates to madvise for register and sysfs for control.
madvise issues:
- MADV_SHAREABLE
- register
