[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100118143516.GK30698@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:35:16 +0200
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
andrew.c.morrow@...il.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] add MAP_UNLOCKED mmap flag
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:32:32PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > this kind of control. As of use of mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) how can I make
> > sure that all memory allocated behind my application's back (by dynamic
> > linker, libraries, stack) will be locked otherwise?
>
> If you add this flag you can't do that anyway - some library will
> helpfully start up using it and then you are completely stuffed or will
> be back in two or three years adding MLOCKALL_ALWAYS.
>
Libraries can do many other bad things. They can do mlockall(0) today
too and this is not the reason to ditch mlockall(). I don't expect libc will
do that though.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists