From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] add MAP_UNLOCKED mmap flag Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:59:52 +0200 Message-ID: <20091007185952.GC19692@redhat.com> References: <20091006190938.126F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091006102136.GH9832@redhat.com> <20091006192454.1272.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091006103300.GI9832@redhat.com> <2f11576a0910060510y401c1d5ax6f17135478d22899@mail.gmail.com> <20091006121603.GK9832@redhat.com> <20091007185054.GB66690@dspnet.fr.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091007185054.GB66690@dspnet.fr.eu.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Olivier Galibert , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:50:54PM +0200, Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:16:03PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > I did. It allows me to achieve something I can't now. Steps you provide > > just don't fit my needs. I need all memory areas (current and feature) to be > > locked except one. Very big one. You propose to lock memory at some > > arbitrary point and from that point on all newly mapped memory areas will > > be unlocked. Don't you see it is different? > > What about mlockall(MCL_CURRENT); mmap(...); mlockall(MCL_FUTURE);? > Or toggle MCL_FUTURE if a mlockall call can stop it? > This may work. And MCL_FUTURE can be toggled, but this is not thread safe. -- Gleb. -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org