On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 04:42:27PM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > On 01/27/2014 04:12 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:23:17PM -0500, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >> - Your number only claimed the effectiveness anon vrange, but not file vrange. > > Yes. It's really problem as I said. > > From the beginning, John Stultz wanted to promote vrange-file to replace > > android's ashmem and when I heard usecase of vrange-file, it does make sense > > to me so that's why I'd like to unify them in a same interface. > > > > But the problem is lack of interesting from others and lack of time to > > test/evaluate it. I'm not an expert of userspace so actually I need a bit > > help from them who require the feature but at a moment, > > but I don't know who really want or/and help it. > > > > Even, Android folks didn't have any interest on vrange-file. > > Just as a correction here. I really don't think this is the case, as > Android's use definitely relies on file based volatility. It might be > more fair to say there hasn't been very much discussion from Android > developers on the particulars of the file volatility semantics (out > possibly not having any particular objections, or more-likely, being a > bit too busy to follow the all various theoretical tangents we've > discussed). > > But I'd not want anyone to get the impression that anonymous-only > volatility would be sufficient for Android's needs. Right. Thanks for the correction. > > > (And to further clarify here, since this can be confusing... > shmem/tmpfs-only file volatility *would* be sufficient, despite that > technically being anonymous backed memory. The key issue is we need to > be able to share the volatility between processes.) > > > > So, we might drop vrange-file part in this patchset if it's really headache. > > But let's discuss further because still I believe it's valuable feature to > > keep instead of dropping. > > If it helps gets interest in reviewing this, I'm ok with deferring > (tmpfs) file volatility, so folks can get comfortable with anonymous > volatility. But I worry its too critical a feature to ignore. Yes. I don't want to drop it without more discussion with real user of it but the problem is it's very hard to find one to have extra time to discuss it. > > 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> -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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>