[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150710101118.5d04d627@lwn.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:11:18 -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 Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:46:35 -0400
Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com> wrote:
> > One other question...if I call mlock2(MLOCK_ONFAULT) on a range that
> > already has resident pages, I believe that those pages will not be locked
> > until they are reclaimed and faulted back in again, right? I suspect that
> > could be surprising to users.
>
> That is the case. I am looking into what it would take to find only the
> present pages in a range and lock them, if that is the behavior that is
> preferred I can include it in the updated series.
For whatever my $0.02 is worth, I think that should be done. Otherwise
the mlock2() interface is essentially nondeterministic; you'll never
really know if a specific page is locked or not.
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