[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTikkA5H2D23u23FV0cTcL2bAT8BKWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 15:58:02 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't mlock guardpage if the stack is growing up
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com> wrote:
>
> P.S. while we could start both stacks on the same page and have the grow
> away from the start point, ia64 actually starts them out a fair distance apart
> and lets them run into each other (if you have enough memory to let them
> grow that far, and if ulimit -s doesn't stop them earlier)
Ahh, so you never actually have one single mapping that has both flags set?
In that case, I won't even worry about it.
One thing I did want to verify: did the mlockall() actually change the
stack size without that patch? Just to double-check that the patch
actually did change semantics visibly.
Linus
--
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