[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150722143220.GB3203@akamai.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:32:20 -0400
From: Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
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 V4 5/6] mm: mmap: Add mmap flag to request VM_LOCKONFAULT
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 03:59:40PM -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > The cost of faulting in all memory to be locked can be very high when
> > working with large mappings. If only portions of the mapping will be
> > used this can incur a high penalty for locking.
> >
> > Now that we have the new VMA flag for the locked but not present state,
> > expose it as an mmap option like MAP_LOCKED -> VM_LOCKED.
>
> What is advantage over mmap() + mlock(MLOCK_ONFAULT)?
There isn't one, it was added to maintain parity with the
mlock(MLOCK_LOCK) -> mmap(MAP_LOCKED) set. I think not having will lead
to confusion because we have MAP_LOCKED so why don't we support
LOCKONFAULT from mmap as well.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists