On Wed, 21 May 2014 22:19:55 -0400 Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > A much nicer interface would be for us to (finally!) implement
> > fincore(), perhaps with an enhanced per-present-page payload which
> > presents the info which you need (although we don't actually know what
> > that info is!).
>
> page/pfn of each page slot and its page cache tag as shown in patch 4/4.
>
> > This would require open() - it appears to be a requirement that the
> > caller not open the file, but no reason was given for this.
> >
> > Requiring open() would address some of the obvious security concerns,
> > but it will still be possible for processes to poke around and get some
> > understanding of the behaviour of other processes. Careful attention
> > should be paid to this aspect of any such patchset.
>
> Sorry if I missed your point, but this interface defines fixed mapping
> between file position in /proc/kpagecache and in-file page offset of
> the target file. So we do not need to use seq_file mechanism, that's
> why open() is not defined and default one is used.
> The same thing is true for /proc/{kpagecount,kpageflags}, from which
> I copied/pasted some basic code.
I think you did miss my point ;) Please do a web search for fincore -
it's a syscall similar to mincore(), only it queries pagecache:
fincore(int fd, loff_t offset, ...). In its simplest form it queries
just for present/absent, but we could increase the query payload to
incorporate additional per-page info.
It would take a lot of thought and discussion to nail down the
fincore() interface (we've already tried a couple of times). But
unfortunately, fincore() is probably going to be implemented one day
and it will (or at least could) make /proc/kpagecache obsolete.
--
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>