On 1/14/25 9:23 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 14.01.25 18:01, Yang Shi wrote:
On 1/14/25 7:06 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 14.01.25 15:52, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 02:01:32PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 13.01.25 23:30, Yang Shi wrote:
When creating private mapping for /dev/zero, the driver makes it an
anonymous mapping by calling set_vma_anonymous(). But it just sets
vm_ops to NULL, vm_file is still valid and vm_pgoff is also file
offset.
This is a special case and the VMA doesn't look like either
anonymous VMA
or file VMA. It confused other kernel subsystem, for example,
khugepaged [1].
It seems pointless to keep such special case. Making private
/dev/zero>
mapping a full anonymous mapping doesn't change the semantic of
/dev/zero either.
The user visible effect is the mapping entry shown in
/proc/<PID>/smaps
and /proc/<PID>/maps.
Before the change:
ffffb7190000-ffffb7590000 rw-p 00001000 00:06
8 /dev/zero
After the change:
ffffb6130000-ffffb6530000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
Hm, not sure about this. It's actually quite consistent to have that
output
in smaps the way it is. You mapped a file at an offset, and it
behaves like
an anonymous mapping apart from that.
Not sure if the buggy khugepaged thing is a good indicator to
warrant this
change.
I admit this may be a concern, but I doubt who really care about it...
There is an example in the man page [1] about /proc/self/map_files/.
I assume that will also change here.
IIUC, that example is specific to "anonymous shared memory" created by
shared mapping of /dev/zero.
It's always hard to tell who that could affect, but I'm not convinced
this is worth it to find it out :)
Yeah, this is a user-facing fundamental change that hides information
and
defies expectation so I mean - it's a no go really isn't it?
I'd rather we _not_ make this anon though, because isn't life
confusing
enough David? I thought it was bad enough with 'anon, file and lol
shmem'
but 'lol lol also /dev/zero' is enough to make me want to frolick
in the
fields...
I recall there are users that rely on this memory to get the shared
zeropage on reads etc (in comparison to shmem!), so I better not ...
mess with this *at all* :)
The behavior won't be changed.
Yes, I know. And that's good ;)
[1] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man5/proc_pid_map_files.5.html
