On 10/18/2014 07:49 AM, Dominik Dingel wrote: > On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:04:21 -0700 > Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Is there ever a time where the VMAs under an mm have mixed VM_NOZEROPAGE >> status? Reading the patches, it _looks_ like it might be an all or >> nothing thing. > > Currently it is an all or nothing thing, but for a future change we might want to just > tag the guest memory instead of the complete user address space. I think it's a bad idea to reserve a flag for potential future use. If you _need_ it in the future, let's have the discussion then. For now, I think it should probably just be stored in the mm somewhere. >> Full disclosure: I've got an x86-specific feature I want to steal a flag >> for. Maybe we should just define another VM_ARCH bit. >> > > So you think of something like: > > #if defined(CONFIG_S390) > # define VM_NOZEROPAGE VM_ARCH_1 > #endif > > #ifndef VM_NOZEROPAGE > # define VM_NOZEROPAGE VM_NONE > #endif > > right? Yeah, something like that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
