[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTikLJPCc5ffobAb5uhdryRqjGhpVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 16:08:44 -0700
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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 3:58 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Ahh, so you never actually have one single mapping that has both flags set?
>
> In that case, I won't even worry about it.
Definitely not for normal processes - I'm not sure how both stacks are
set up for threads.
> 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.
On an unpatched system I see this (lots more than one page of growth -
pages are 64K on this config):
6007fffffff50000-6007fffffff70000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
6007fffffff50000-6008000000750000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
On a patched system I see (this one has 16K pages - no growth)
600007ffff9d0000-600007ffff9d4000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
600007ffff9d0000-600007ffff9d4000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
-Tony
--
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