On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:52:51PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > On 08/19/2016 04:43 PM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:20:22PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > >> And (!) after non-cooperative patches are functional too. > > > > I merged your non-cooperative patches in my tree although there's no > > testcase to exercise them yet. > > Hm... Are you talking about some in-kernel test, or just any? We have > tests in CRIU tree for UFFD (not sure we've wired up the non-cooperative > part though). Well, CRIU is by definition non-cooperative :) Still, we don't have fork() and other events in CRIU lazy restore yet. I have some brute force additions to the selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c that verify that the events work, and I'm trying now to get a clean version. BTW, with addition of hugetlbfs and tmpfs support to userfaultfd, we'd need MADV_REMOVE and fallocate(PUNCH_HOLE) events in addition to MADV_DONTNEED... > > > > Thanks, > > Andrea > > . > > > > -- Pavel > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>