Hi David, On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 10:11:24AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > The semantics are much more intuitive. No need for separate mmap flags. Agreed. > Likely we'll have to adjust mlock() as well. Also, I think we should > just bail out with hugetlb as well. Ack. > Further, maybe we want to disallow madvise() clearing these flags here, > just to be consistent. Good thinking. > As a side note, I'll raise that I am not a particular fan of the > "droppable" terminology, at least with the "read 0s" approach. > > From a user perspective, the memory might suddenly lose its state and > read as 0s just like volatile memory when it loses power. "dropping > pages" sounds more like an implementation detail. > > Something like MAP_VOLATILE might be more intuitive (similar to the > proposed MADV_VOLATILE). > > But naming is hard, just mentioning to share my thought :) Naming is hard, but *renaming* is annoying. I like droppable simply because that's what I've been calling it in my head. MAP_VOLATILE is fine with me though, and seems reasonable enough. So I'll name it that, and then please don't change your mind about it later so I won't have to rename everything again. :) Jason
