[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150708132351.61c13db6@lwn.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 13:23:51 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/5] mm: mlock: Introduce VM_LOCKONFAULT and add
mlock flags to enable it
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 13:03:41 -0400
Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com> wrote:
> This patch introduces the ability to request that pages are not
> pre-faulted, but are placed on the unevictable LRU when they are finally
> faulted in. This can be done area at a time via the
> mlock2(MLOCK_ONFAULT) or the mlockall(MCL_ONFAULT) system calls. These
> calls can be undone via munlock2(MLOCK_ONFAULT) or
> munlockall2(MCL_ONFAULT).
Quick, possibly dumb question: I've been beating my head against these for
a little bit, and I can't figure out what's supposed to happen in this
case:
mlock2(addr, len, MLOCK_ONFAULT);
munlock2(addr, len, MLOCK_LOCKED);
It looks to me like it will clear VM_LOCKED without actually unlocking any
pages. Is that the intended result?
Thanks,
jon
--
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