On Tue, 07 Jul 2015, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 13:03:38 -0400 Eric B Munson <emunson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > mlock() allows a user to control page out of program memory, but this > > comes at the cost of faulting in the entire mapping when it is > > allocated. For large mappings where the entire area is not necessary > > this is not ideal. Instead of forcing all locked pages to be present > > when they are allocated, this set creates a middle ground. Pages are > > marked to be placed on the unevictable LRU (locked) when they are first > > used, but they are not faulted in by the mlock call. > > > > This series introduces a new mlock() system call that takes a flags > > argument along with the start address and size. This flags argument > > gives the caller the ability to request memory be locked in the > > traditional way, or to be locked after the page is faulted in. New > > calls are added for munlock() and munlockall() which give the called a > > way to specify which flags are supposed to be cleared. A new MCL flag > > is added to mirror the lock on fault behavior from mlock() in > > mlockall(). Finally, a flag for mmap() is added that allows a user to > > specify that the covered are should not be paged out, but only after the > > memory has been used the first time. > > Thanks for sticking with this. Adding new syscalls is a bit of a > hassle but I do think we end up with a better interface - the existing > mlock/munlock/mlockall interfaces just aren't appropriate for these > things. > > I don't know whether these syscalls should be documented via new > manpages, or if we should instead add them to the existing > mlock/munlock/mlockall manpages. Michael, could you please advise? > Thanks for adding the series. I owe you several updates (getting the new syscall right for all architectures and a set of tests for the new syscalls). Would you prefer a new pair of patches or I update this set? Eric
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature