[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1263826198.4283.600.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:49:58 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
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, 2010-01-18 at 14:32 +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.
Agreed, mlockall() is a very bad interface and should not be used for a
plethora of reasons, this being one of them.
The thing is, if you cant trust your library to do sane things, then
don't use it.
--
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