On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:05:45PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
If it's mapped and readable-but-not-writable then it should still
fault on write accesses, though? These are cases we currently get
SEGV for, anyway.
Yes then it'll work just fine.
Ah, I guess we have a terminology difference. I
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 05:56:59PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 29 October 2014 17:46, Andrea Arcangeli aarca...@redhat.com wrote:
After some chat during the KVMForum I've been already thinking it
could be beneficial for some usage to give userland the information
about the
On 21 November 2014 20:14, Andrea Arcangeli aarca...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 05:56:59PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 29 October 2014 17:46, Andrea Arcangeli aarca...@redhat.com wrote:
After some chat during the KVMForum I've been already thinking it
could be
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:39:32PM -0700, Peter Feiner wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:29:49AM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
Agreed, but for doing live memory snapshot (VM is running when do
snapsphot),
we have to do this (block the write action), because we have to save the
page
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:54:29AM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
Yes, you are right. This is what i really want, bypass all non-present faults
and only track strict wrprotect faults. ;)
So, do you plan to support that in the userfault API?
Yes I think it's good idea to support
On 2014/11/21 1:38, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:54:29AM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
Yes, you are right. This is what i really want, bypass all non-present faults
and only track strict wrprotect faults. ;)
So, do you plan to support that in the userfault API?
Yes I
Hi Zhang,
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:26:09AM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/30 20:49, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* zhanghailiang (zhang.zhanghaili...@huawei.com) wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi Zhanghailiang,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800,
On 2014/11/20 2:49, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi Zhang,
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:26:09AM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/30 20:49, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* zhanghailiang (zhang.zhanghaili...@huawei.com) wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi Zhanghailiang,
On
Hi Andrea,
Is there any new about this discussion? ;)
Will you plan to support 'only wrprotect fault' in the userfault API?
Thanks,
zhanghailiang
On 2014/10/30 19:31, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi Zhanghailiang,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM
On 2014/11/1 3:39, Peter Feiner wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:29:49AM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
Agreed, but for doing live memory snapshot (VM is running when do snapsphot),
we have to do this (block the write action), because we have to save the page
before it
is dirtied by writing
On 2014/10/31 13:17, Andres Lagar-Cavilla wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:38 PM, zhanghailiang
zhang.zhanghaili...@huawei.com wrote:
On 2014/10/31 11:29, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/31 10:23, Peter Feiner wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:31:48PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
On
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:29:49AM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
Agreed, but for doing live memory snapshot (VM is running when do snapsphot),
we have to do this (block the write action), because we have to save the page
before it
is dirtied by writing action. This is the difference, compared
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi Zhanghailiang,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
Hi Andrea,
Thanks for your hard work on userfault;)
This is really a useful API.
I want to confirm a question:
Can we support distinguishing between writing and
* zhanghailiang (zhang.zhanghaili...@huawei.com) wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi Zhanghailiang,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
Hi Andrea,
Thanks for your hard work on userfault;)
This is really a useful API.
I want to confirm a
On 2014/10/30 20:49, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* zhanghailiang (zhang.zhanghaili...@huawei.com) wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi Zhanghailiang,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
Hi Andrea,
Thanks for your hard work on userfault;)
This
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:31:48PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
I want to confirm a question:
Can we support distinguishing between writing and reading memory for
userfault?
That is, we
On 2014/10/31 10:23, Peter Feiner wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:31:48PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
I want to confirm a question:
Can we support distinguishing between writing and
On 2014/10/31 11:29, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/31 10:23, Peter Feiner wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:31:48PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
I want to confirm a question:
Can we
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:38 PM, zhanghailiang
zhang.zhanghaili...@huawei.com wrote:
On 2014/10/31 11:29, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/31 10:23, Peter Feiner wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:31:48PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
On 2014/10/30 1:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Mon, Oct
Hi Zhanghailiang,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:32:51PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote:
Hi Andrea,
Thanks for your hard work on userfault;)
This is really a useful API.
I want to confirm a question:
Can we support distinguishing between writing and reading memory for
userfault?
That is, we
On 29 October 2014 17:46, Andrea Arcangeli aarca...@redhat.com wrote:
After some chat during the KVMForum I've been already thinking it
could be beneficial for some usage to give userland the information
about the fault being read or write
...I wonder if that would let us replace the current
Hi Andrea,
Thanks for your hard work on userfault;)
This is really a useful API.
I want to confirm a question:
Can we support distinguishing between writing and reading memory for userfault?
That is, we can decide whether writing a page, reading a page or both trigger
userfault.
I think this
Hello everyone,
There's a large To/Cc list for this RFC because this adds two new
syscalls (userfaultfd and remap_anon_pages) and
MADV_USERFAULT/MADV_NOUSERFAULT, so suggestions on changes are welcome
sooner than later.
The major change compared to the previous RFC I sent a few months ago
is
23 matches
Mail list logo
