On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:11:49 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > The man page however says > " > MAP_LOCKED (since Linux 2.5.37) > Lock the pages of the mapped region into memory in the manner of > mlock(2). This flag is ignored in older kernels. > " I'm trying to remember why we implemented MAP_LOCKED in the first place. Was it better than mmap+mlock in some fashion? afaict we had a #define MAP_LOCKED in the header file but it wasn't implemented, so we went and wired it up. 13 years ago: https://lkml.org/lkml/2002/9/18/108 Anyway... the third way of doing this is to use plain old mmap() while mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) is in force. Has anyone looked at that, checked that the behaviour is sane and compared it with the mmap+mlock behaviour, the MAP_LOCKED behaviour and the manpages? -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>