Re: [PATCH] kanoj-mm2.0-2.2.9 unneccesary page force in by munlock

Kanoj Sarcar
1999-05-17T17:32:17Z

>
>
> On Sun, 16 May 1999, Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, my logic was a little bit different. Note that you can call munlock()
> > on a range even when a previous mlock() has not been done on the range (I
> > think that's not an munlock error in POSIX). In 2.2.9, this would end up
> > faulting in the pages, which doesn't need to happen ... (haven't really
> > thought whether "root" can erroneously force memory deadlocks this way)
>
> Well, if you look closely, the mlock_fixup() routine tests whether
> lockedness has changed and returns early if it hasn't.. So in your case
> nothing at all would have been done..
>
> Linus

Indeed, it does, my mistake ... it still makes sense to clean up the
code, as you mentioned originally ...