From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1756422AbZJHJgY@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756422AbZJHJgY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:36:24 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755306AbZJHJgX
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:36:23 -0400
Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.25]:8418 "EHLO
	qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754957AbZJHJgW (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:36:22 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id
         :user-agent:mime-version:content-type;
        b=FK+9hTGJhC/Dcd1sRMRM0tfqXwuVeVLjEDgaZ2qJH58v7PZ6iQl8Fhdvx7AtSzYjae
         jOrlQ6JgN+fI0tiKMXb4bzWRYrCS8dkES3Vb6FsOh+C20Zn8Y93v19CoeC3LaNcN0Jz+
         skMrxkRHywPxdv50eFxdrxWhrSZZNL8a8lcpg=
From: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][RFC] add MAP_UNLOCKED mmap flag
References: <20091006190316.GB19692@redhat.com> <874oqap7xw.fsf@gmail.com>
	<20091008091611.GD16702@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:37:45 +0800
In-Reply-To: <20091008091611.GD16702@redhat.com> (Gleb Natapov's message of
	"Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:16:12 +0200")
Message-ID: <87zl82ns46.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 05:10:35PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>> > If application does mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) it is no longer possible to
>> > mmap file bigger than main memory or allocate big area of anonymous
>> > memory. Sometimes it is desirable to lock everything related to program
>> > execution into memory, but still be able to mmap big file or allocate
>> > huge amount of memory and allow OS to swap them on demand. MAP_UNLOCKED
>> > allows to do that.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
>> > index 73f5e4b..ecc4471 100644
>> > --- a/mm/mmap.c
>> > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
>> > @@ -985,6 +985,9 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
>> >  		if (!can_do_mlock())
>> >  			return -EPERM;
>> >  
>> > +        if (flags & MAP_UNLOCKED)
>> > +                vm_flags &= ~VM_LOCKED;
>> > +
>> >  	/* mlock MCL_FUTURE? */
>> >  	if (vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) {
>> >  		unsigned long locked, lock_limit;
>> 
>> So, if I read it correctly, it is perfectly legal to set
>> both MAP_LOCKED and MAP_UNLOCKED at the same time? While
>> the behavior is still same as only setting MAP_UNLOCKED.
>> 
>> Is this what we expect?
>> 
> This is what code does currently. Should we return EINVAL in this case?
>

I suppose to get an EINVAL.