[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <573314ED.4090704@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:18:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <miso@...p22.suse.cz>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mmap.2: clarify MAP_LOCKED semantic
On 05/11/2016 01:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On 05/13/2015 04:38 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>> This patch makes the semantic of MAP_LOCKED explicit and suggest using
>> mmap + mlock as the only way to guarantee no later major page faults.
>>
>
> URGH, this really blows chunks. It basically means MAP_LOCKED is
> pointless cruft and we might as well remove it.
>
> Why not fix it proper?
OK; after having been pointed at this discussion, it seems I reacted rather
too hasty in that I didn't read all the previous threads.
From that it appears fixing this proper is indeed rather hard, and we
should
indeed consider MAP_LOCKED broken. At which point I would've worded the
manpage update stronger, but alas.
Sorry for the noise.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists