Anyway, afaict there's only two options: 1) make mlock() mean physically pinned (which we've so far always rejected and isn't supported by whatever passes as a std for unix -- at least not by the precise wording). 2) keep mlock() to mean no major fault. I strongly prefer 2 -- its what we've always said. This might mean there's a need for a stronger API -- one that also guarantees physically pinned. This is a more expensive resource/operation. It means we need to migrate all memory to UNMOVABLE blocks, possibly growing the number of such blocks with all the down-sides that has. Alternatively -- in case we pick 1 -- we should create a weaker variant that does what mlock means now in order to allow people to not pressure the system unduly. I don't see any other way.. the current constraints really are mutually exclusive. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href