Le 19/05/2022 à 20:31, Chih-En Lin a écrit : > Add CLONE_COW_PGTABLE flag to support clone3() system call to enable the > Copy-On-Write (COW) mechanism on the page table. Is that really something we want the user to decide ? Isn't it an internal stuff that should be transparent for users ? As far as I know, there is no way today to decide whether you want COW or not for main memory. Why should there be a choice for the COW of page tables ? > > Signed-off-by: Chih-En Lin <shiyn.lin@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > include/uapi/linux/sched.h | 1 + > kernel/fork.c | 6 +++++- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/sched.h b/include/uapi/linux/sched.h > index 3bac0a8ceab2..3b92ff589e0f 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/sched.h > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ > /* Flags for the clone3() syscall. */ > #define CLONE_CLEAR_SIGHAND 0x100000000ULL /* Clear any signal handler and reset to SIG_DFL. */ > #define CLONE_INTO_CGROUP 0x200000000ULL /* Clone into a specific cgroup given the right permissions. */ > +#define CLONE_COW_PGTABLE 0x400000000ULL /* Copy-On-Write for page table */ > > /* > * cloning flags intersect with CSIGNAL so can be used with unshare and clone3 > diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c > index 35a3beff140b..08cf95201333 100644 > --- a/kernel/fork.c > +++ b/kernel/fork.c > @@ -2636,6 +2636,9 @@ pid_t kernel_clone(struct kernel_clone_args *args) > trace = 0; > } > > + if (clone_flags & CLONE_COW_PGTABLE) > + set_bit(MMF_COW_PGTABLE, ¤t->mm->flags); > + > p = copy_process(NULL, trace, NUMA_NO_NODE, args); > add_latent_entropy(); > > @@ -2860,7 +2863,8 @@ static bool clone3_args_valid(struct kernel_clone_args *kargs) > { > /* Verify that no unknown flags are passed along. */ > if (kargs->flags & > - ~(CLONE_LEGACY_FLAGS | CLONE_CLEAR_SIGHAND | CLONE_INTO_CGROUP)) > + ~(CLONE_LEGACY_FLAGS | CLONE_CLEAR_SIGHAND | CLONE_INTO_CGROUP | > + CLONE_COW_PGTABLE)) > return false; > > /* > -- > 2.36.1 >