Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755832Ab1EIW64 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2011 18:58:56 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:39843 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753663Ab1EIW6y (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2011 18:58:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1304979549.4865.56.camel@mulgrave.site> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 15:58:02 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't mlock guardpage if the stack is growing up To: Tony Luck Cc: James Bottomley , Mikulas Patocka , Fenghua Yu , Hugh Dickins , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, Michel Lespinasse , Oleg Nesterov , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 933 Lines: 21 On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Tony Luck wrote: > > P.S. while we could start both stacks on the same page and have the grow > away from the start point, ia64 actually starts them out a fair distance apart > and lets them run into each other (if you have enough memory to let them > grow that far, and if ulimit -s doesn't stop them earlier) Ahh, so you never actually have one single mapping that has both flags set? In that case, I won't even worry about it. One thing I did want to verify: did the mlockall() actually change the stack size without that patch? Just to double-check that the patch actually did change semantics visibly. Linus -- 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/