[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150722141501.GA3203@akamai.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:15:01 -0400
From: Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-am33-list@...hat.com,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-cris-kernel@...s.com,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/6] mm: mlock: Add new mlock, munlock, and munlockall
system calls
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 13:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:59:37 -0400 Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com> wrote:
> >
> > > With the refactored mlock code, introduce new system calls for mlock,
> > > munlock, and munlockall. The new calls will allow the user to specify
> > > what lock states are being added or cleared. mlock2 and munlock2 are
> > > trivial at the moment, but a follow on patch will add a new mlock state
> > > making them useful.
> > >
> > > munlock2 addresses a limitation of the current implementation. If a
> > > user calls mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE) and then later decides
> > > that MCL_FUTURE should be removed, they would have to call munlockall()
> > > followed by mlockall(MCL_CURRENT) which could potentially be very
> > > expensive. The new munlockall2 system call allows a user to simply
> > > clear the MCL_FUTURE flag.
> >
> > This is hard. Maybe we shouldn't have wired up anything other than
> > x86. That's what we usually do with new syscalls.
>
> Yeah I think so.
>
> You haven't wired it up properly on powerpc, but I haven't mentioned it because
> I'd rather we did it.
>
> cheers
It looks like I will be spinning a V5, so I will drop all but the x86
system calls additions in that version.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists