From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265215AbTLKTOj (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:14:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265217AbTLKTOj (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:14:39 -0500 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:24336 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265215AbTLKTOh (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:14:37 -0500 Subject: Re: mlock() "bogus check" (locked > num_physpages/2) _does_ hurt! From: Rob Love To: Lutz Vieweg Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <3FD8BE9D.9000701@isg.de> References: <3FD8BE9D.9000701@isg.de> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1071170077.13785.107.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-8) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:14:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 13:59, Lutz Vieweg wrote: > Is there any good reason to keep this check in the 2.4 kernel sources? Not really. > It's good to know the check is not present in the 2.6 sources, but I would > like to get rid of it in 2.4, too... It was removed from 2.6 for the reasons you cite. 2.4 could follow suit. It does lead to problems, though, where you can memlock too much memory and lock the machine up. But we could file that under "don't do that". Rob Love