Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030446AbWAXKvf (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2006 05:51:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030447AbWAXKvf (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2006 05:51:35 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.21]:26586 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1030446AbWAXKve (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2006 05:51:34 -0500 X-Authenticated: #428038 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:51:29 +0100 From: Matthias Andree To: Joerg Schilling Cc: matthias.andree@gmx.de, arjan@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Rationale for RLIMIT_MEMLOCK? Message-ID: <20060124105129.GB26042@merlin.emma.line.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joerg Schilling , arjan@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1138014312.2977.37.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060123165415.GA32178@merlin.emma.line.org> <1138035602.2977.54.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060123180106.GA4879@merlin.emma.line.org> <1138039993.2977.62.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060123185549.GA15985@merlin.emma.line.org> <43D530CC.nailC4Y11KE7A@burner> <20060123203010.GB1820@merlin.emma.line.org> <1138092761.2977.32.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <43D5EEA2.nailCE7111GPO@burner> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43D5EEA2.nailCE7111GPO@burner> X-PGP-Key: http://home.pages.de/~mandree/keys/GPGKEY.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1115 Lines: 30 Joerg Schilling schrieb am 2006-01-24: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > And because this requirement is not specified in the relevant standards, > > > it is wrong to assume valloc() returns locked pages. > > > > is it? I sort of doubt that (but I'm not a standards expert, but I'd > > expect that "lock all in the future" applies to all memory, not just > > mmap'd memory > > I concur: > > Locking pages into core is a property/duty of the VM subsystem. But where is this laid down in the standard? There must be some part that defines this, else we cannot rely on it. The wording for malloc() and mmap() or mlock() is different. One talks about address space and mapping, whereas malloc() talks about "storage". Only I haven't got time to look for it now. Just that Solaris happens to do it doesn't make it a standard. -- Matthias Andree - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/