On 04/22/2013 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
Just want to make sure our case does not fall out of the discussion:
https://code.google.com/p/thread-sanitizer/wiki/VolatileRanges
Yes, while I forgot to mention it in the summary, I did bring it up
briefly, but I cannot claim to have done it justice.
Personally, while I suspect we might be able to support your desired
semantics (ie: mark once volatile, always zero-fill, no sigbus) via a
mode flag
While reading your email, I remembered that we actually have some
pages mapped from a file inside the range. So it's like 70TB of ANON
mapping + few pages in the middle mapped from FILE. The file is mapped
with MAP_PRIVATE + PROT_READ, it's read-only and not shared.
But we want to mark the volatile range only once on startup, so
performance is not a serious concern (while the function in executed
in say no more than 10ms).
If the mixed ANON+FILE ranges becomes a serious problem, we are ready
to remove FILE mappings, because it's only an optimization. I.e. we
can make it pure ANON mapping.
Well, in my mind, the MAP_PRIVATE mappings are semantically the same as
anonymous memory with regards to volatility. So I hope this wouldn't be
an issue.
thanks
-john
--
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>