On 07/28/2015 01:17 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[I am sorry but I didn't get to this sooner.]
On Mon 27-07-15 10:54:09, Eric B Munson wrote:
Now that VM_LOCKONFAULT is a modifier to VM_LOCKED and
cannot be specified independentally, it might make more sense to mirror
that relationship to userspace. Which would lead to soemthing like the
following:
A modifier makes more sense.
To lock and populate a region:
mlock2(start, len, 0);
To lock on fault a region:
mlock2(start, len, MLOCK_ONFAULT);
If LOCKONFAULT is seen as a modifier to mlock, then having the flags
argument as 0 mean do mlock classic makes more sense to me.
To mlock current on fault only:
mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_ONFAULT);
To mlock future on fault only:
mlockall(MCL_FUTURE | MCL_ONFAULT);
To lock everything on fault:
mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE | MCL_ONFAULT);
Makes sense to me. The only remaining and still tricky part would be
the munlock{all}(flags) behavior. What should munlock(MLOCK_ONFAULT)
do? Keep locked and poppulate the range or simply ignore the flag an
just unlock?
munlock(all) already lost both MLOCK_LOCKED and MLOCK_ONFAULT flags in
this revision, so I suppose in the next revision it will also not accept
MLOCK_ONFAULT, and will just munlock whatever was mlocked in either mode.
I can see some sense to allow munlockall(MCL_FUTURE[|MLOCK_ONFAULT]),
munlockall(MCL_CURRENT) resp. munlockall(MCL_CURRENT|MCL_FUTURE) but
other combinations sound weird to me.
The effect of munlockall(MCL_FUTURE|MLOCK_ONFAULT), which you probably
intended for converting the onfault to full prepopulation for future
mappings, can be achieved by calling mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) (without
MLOCK_ONFAULT).
Anyway munlock with flags opens new doors of trickiness.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
