[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150722104226.GA8630@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:42:26 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
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-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/6] mm: mlock: Refactor mlock, munlock, and
munlockall code
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 03:59:36PM -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
> @@ -648,20 +656,23 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(munlock, unsigned long, start, size_t, len)
> start &= PAGE_MASK;
>
> down_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
> - ret = do_mlock(start, len, 0);
> + ret = apply_vma_flags(start, len, flags, false);
> up_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
>
> return ret;
> }
>
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(munlock, unsigned long, start, size_t, len)
> +{
> + return do_munlock(start, len, VM_LOCKED);
> +}
> +
> static int do_mlockall(int flags)
> {
> struct vm_area_struct * vma, * prev = NULL;
>
> if (flags & MCL_FUTURE)
> current->mm->def_flags |= VM_LOCKED;
> - else
> - current->mm->def_flags &= ~VM_LOCKED;
I think this is wrong.
With current code mlockall(MCL_CURRENT) after mlockall(MCL_FUTURE |
MCL_CURRENT) would undo future mlocking, without unlocking currently
mlocked memory.
The change will break the use-case.
> if (flags == MCL_FUTURE)
> goto out;
>
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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