Re: [RFC] perf: mmap2 not covering VM_CLONE regions

[Stephane Eranian]

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 09:15:30AM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> Yes, it is but I am trying to see whether or not we could unify that and
>> use a single u64 number to uniquely identify each mapping.
>
> No you cannot; two unrelated executables which have distinct mm_ids can
> easily mmap() the same shared file.

That seems to indicate the mm_ids is not attached to the right level of VM
data structure. But I am okay with keeping it that way and stashing the mm_id
as a pseudo inode number for the case of non file-backed mappings. If we
say maj=min=ino=gen=0 means no "info", then any other combinations can
be used to identify identical mappings. We use actual min,maj, ino, gen
for file backed, and maj=min=gen=0 + ino = mm_ids for the other cases.
That should work, shouldn't it?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/