On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 13:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:59:37 -0400 Eric B Munson <emunson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > With the refactored mlock code, introduce new system calls for mlock, > > munlock, and munlockall. The new calls will allow the user to specify > > what lock states are being added or cleared. mlock2 and munlock2 are > > trivial at the moment, but a follow on patch will add a new mlock state > > making them useful. > > > > munlock2 addresses a limitation of the current implementation. If a > > user calls mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE) and then later decides > > that MCL_FUTURE should be removed, they would have to call munlockall() > > followed by mlockall(MCL_CURRENT) which could potentially be very > > expensive. The new munlockall2 system call allows a user to simply > > clear the MCL_FUTURE flag. > > This is hard. Maybe we shouldn't have wired up anything other than > x86. That's what we usually do with new syscalls. Yeah I think so. You haven't wired it up properly on powerpc, but I haven't mentioned it because I'd rather we did it. cheers -- 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>