On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 06:00:20PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: [snip] > > > > To summarise for on-list: > > > > * MADV_FREE, while ostensibly being a 'lazy free' mechanism, has the > > ability to be 'cancelled' if you write to the memory. Also, after the > > freeing is complete, you can write to the memory to reuse it, the mapping > > is still there. > > > > * For hardware poison markers it makes sense to drop them as you're > > effectively saying 'I am done with this range that is now unbacked and > > expect to get an empty page should I use it now'. UFFD WP I am not sure > > about but presumably also fine. > > > > * However, guard pages are different - if you 'cancel' and you are left > > with a block of memory allocated to you by a pthread or userland > > allocator implementation, you don't want to then no longer be protected > > from overrunning into other thread memory. > > Agreed. What happens on MADV_DONTNEED/MADV_FREE on guard pages? Ignored or > error? It sounds like a usage "error" to me (in contrast to munmap()). It's ignored, no errror. On MADV_DONTNEED we already left the guard pages in place, from v3 we will do the same for MADV_FREE. I'm not sure I'd say it's an error per se, as somebody might have a use case where they want to zap over a range but keep guard pages, perhaps an allocator or something? Also the existing logic is that existing markers (HW poison, uffd-simulated HW poison, uffd wp marker) are retained and no error raised on MADV_DONTNEED, and no error on MADV_FREE either, so it'd be consistent with existing behaviour. Also semantically you are achieving what the calls expect you are freeing the ranges since the guard page regions are unbacked so are already freed... so yeah I don't think an error really makes sense here. We might also be limiting use cases by assuming they might _only_ be used for allocators and such. > > -- > Cheers, > > David / dhildenb >
