Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760010AbZJGULK (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 16:11:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760001AbZJGULJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 16:11:09 -0400 Received: from dspnet.fr.eu.org ([213.186.44.138]:2316 "EHLO dspnet.fr.eu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759944AbZJGULI (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 16:11:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 22:10:17 +0200 From: Olivier Galibert To: Gleb Natapov Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] add MAP_UNLOCKED mmap flag Message-ID: <20091007201017.GC66690@dspnet.fr.eu.org> Mail-Followup-To: Olivier Galibert , Gleb Natapov , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org References: <20091006190938.126F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091006102136.GH9832@redhat.com> <20091006192454.1272.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091006103300.GI9832@redhat.com> <2f11576a0910060510y401c1d5ax6f17135478d22899@mail.gmail.com> <20091006121603.GK9832@redhat.com> <20091007185054.GB66690@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <20091007185952.GC19692@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091007185952.GC19692@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1205 Lines: 27 On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:59:52PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:50:54PM +0200, Olivier Galibert wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:16:03PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > I did. It allows me to achieve something I can't now. Steps you provide > > > just don't fit my needs. I need all memory areas (current and feature) to be > > > locked except one. Very big one. You propose to lock memory at some > > > arbitrary point and from that point on all newly mapped memory areas will > > > be unlocked. Don't you see it is different? > > > > What about mlockall(MCL_CURRENT); mmap(...); mlockall(MCL_FUTURE);? > > Or toggle MCL_FUTURE if a mlockall call can stop it? > > > This may work. And MCL_FUTURE can be toggled, but this is not thread > safe. Just ensure that your one special mmap is done with the other threads not currently allocating stuff. It's probably a synchronization point for the whole process anyway. OG. -- 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/