DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=fM3pacw1Hn2jfAbu63cbIzhxkgNpjVE9uf9vk3SUmo3XoL3cmSAZ2w/yl9Q4gaPY4LrpDUPr49vLM+Bl1XyNsZ5ac4gQYxNSi3HG4Z7Jhb1eGG4wNztnZbw6zS42fyV7JQQQ5I4W1/PpAFyJl0Xi+fbx1Rywa+Uy07cUdcY+epc=
Message-ID: <bc56f2f0603240705y3b4abe3ej@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:05:09 -0500
From: "Stone Wang" <pwstone@gmail.com>
To: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balanced mlock-LRU semantic
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
In-Reply-To: <441FEF8D.7090905@yahoo.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <bc56f2f0603200535s2b801775m@mail.gmail.com>
	 <441FEF8D.7090905@yahoo.com.au>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2086
Lines: 58

2006/3/21, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>:
> Stone Wang wrote:
> > Both one of my friends(who is working on a DBMS oriented from
> > PostgreSQL) and i had encountered unexpected OOMs with mlock/mlockall.
> >
>
> I'm not sure this is a great idea. There are more conditions than just
> mlock that prevent pages being reclaimed. Running out of swap, for
> example, no swap, page temporarily pinned (in other words -- any duration
> from fleeting to permanent). I think something _much_ simpler could be
> done for a more general approach just to teach the VM to tolerate these
> pages a bit better.
>
> Also, supposing we do want this, I think there is a fairly significant
> queue of mm stuff you need to line up behind... it is probably asking
> too much to target 2.6.17 for such a significant change in any case.
>
> But despite all that I looked though and have a few comments ;)
> Kudos for jumping in and getting your hands dirty! It can be tricky code.
>
> > The patch brings Linux with:
> > 1. Posix mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall.
> >    Get mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall to Posix definiton: transaction-like,
> >    just as described in the manpage(2) of mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall.
> >    Thus users of mlock system call series will always have an clear map of
> >    mlocked areas.
>
> In what way are we not now posix compliant now?

Currently, Linux's mlock for example, may fail with  only part of its
task finished.

While accroding to POSIX definition:

man mlock(2)

"
RETURN VALUE
       On success, mlock returns zero.  On error, -1 is returned, errno is set
       appropriately, and no changes are made to  any  locks  in  the  address
       space of the process.
"

Shaoping Wang

>
> --
> SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
-
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/