[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190524214304.enntpu4tvzpyxzfe@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 17:43:04 -0400
From: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
To: "Potyra, Stefan" <Stefan.Potyra@...ktrobit.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Jordan, Tobias" <Tobias.Jordan@...ktrobit.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, mhocko@...e.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mlockall error for flag MCL_ONFAULT
[ Adding linux-api and some of the people who were involved in the
MCL_ONFAULT/mlock2/etc discussions. Author of the Fixes patch appears to
have moved on. ]
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:23:37AM +0000, Potyra, Stefan wrote:
> If mlockall() is called with only MCL_ONFAULT as flag,
> it removes any previously applied lockings and does
> nothing else.
The change looks reasonable. Hard to imagine any application relies on it, and
they really shouldn't be if they are. Debian codesearch turned up only a few
cases where stress-ng was doing this for unknown reasons[1] and this change
isn't gonna break those. In this case I think changing the syscall's behavior
is justified.
> This behavior is counter-intuitive and doesn't match the
> Linux man page.
I'd quote it for the changelog:
For mlockall():
EINVAL Unknown flags were specified or MCL_ONFAULT was specified with‐
out either MCL_FUTURE or MCL_CURRENT.
With that you can add
Reviewed-by: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
[1] https://sources.debian.org/src/stress-ng/0.09.50-1/stress-mlock.c/?hl=203#L203
Powered by blists - more mailing lists