On Fri, 10 Jul 2015, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:46:35 -0400 > Eric B Munson <emunson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > One other question...if I call mlock2(MLOCK_ONFAULT) on a range that > > > already has resident pages, I believe that those pages will not be locked > > > until they are reclaimed and faulted back in again, right? I suspect that > > > could be surprising to users. > > > > That is the case. I am looking into what it would take to find only the > > present pages in a range and lock them, if that is the behavior that is > > preferred I can include it in the updated series. > > For whatever my $0.02 is worth, I think that should be done. Otherwise > the mlock2() interface is essentially nondeterministic; you'll never > really know if a specific page is locked or not. > > Thanks, > > jon Okay, I likely won't have the new set out today then. This change is more invasive. IIUC, I need an equivalent to __get_user_page() skips pages which are not present instead of faulting in and the call chain to get to it. Unless there is an easier way that I am missing. Eric
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
