Re: Allow migration of mlocked page?

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

Anyway, afaict there's only two options:

 1) make mlock() mean physically pinned (which we've so far always
rejected and isn't supported by whatever passes as a std for unix -- at
least not by the precise wording).

 2) keep mlock() to mean no major fault.

I strongly prefer 2 -- its what we've always said.


This might mean there's a need for a stronger API -- one that also
guarantees physically pinned. This is a more expensive
resource/operation. It means we need to migrate all memory to UNMOVABLE
blocks, possibly growing the number of such blocks with all the
down-sides that has.

Alternatively -- in case we pick 1 -- we should create a weaker variant
that does what mlock means now in order to allow people to not pressure
the system unduly. 

I don't see any other way.. the current constraints really are mutually
exclusive.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>