Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] The future of anon_vma

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



As with the ongoing evolution of this, as previously discussed, the focus
has settled on merging of anonymous VMAs and improving this mergeability.

I have an RFC series (not upstreamed yet, but should be by LSF) which
optionally permits improved anonymous mapping mergeability by passing a
flag to mremap().

In this topic I'd like to discuss that, anon_vma in general motivations for
it, why it's hard, etc.

This dovetails with the original proposal - bit is a less ambitious, more
short-term 'how can we improve the situation' kind of thing. Maybe next
year there can be more :)

My slides are at ~31 right now, so I wonder whether I could have an hour
slot for this? As I'd also like to have some discussion of course! :)

Thanks!




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux