[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6b38ed08-62cb-97b1-9f16-1fd8e272b137@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:45:16 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>,
yeyunfeng <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>, wanghaitao12@...wei.com,
"Zhoukang (A)" <zhoukang7@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] a question about mlockall() and mprotect()
On 09/26/2017 11:22 AM, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> On 2017/9/26 17:13, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>> This is still very fuzzy. What are you actually trying to achieve?
>>
>> I don't expect page fault any more after mlock.
>>
>
> Our apps is some thing like RT, and page-fault maybe cause a lot of time,
> e.g. lock, mem reclaim ..., so I use mlock and don't want page fault
> any more.
Why does your app then have restricted mprotect when calling mlockall()
and only later adjusts the mprotect?
Vlastimil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists