Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] recognize MAP_LOCKED in mmap() call | From | Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon ... | Date | Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:18:05 -0500 |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: >(SuS really only anticipates that mmap needs to look at prior mlocks >in force against the address range. It also says > > Process memory locking does apply to shared memory regions, > >and we don't do that either. I think we should; can't see why SuS >requires this.)
Let me make sure I read what you said correctly. Does this mean that Linux 2.4 (or 2.5) kernels do not lock shared memory regions if a process uses mlockall?
If not, that is *really bad* for our real time applications. We don't want to take a page fault while running some 80hz task, just because some non-real time application tried to use what little physical memory we allow for the kernel and all other applications.
I asked a related question about a week ago on linux-mm and didn't get a response. Basically, I was concerned that top did not show RSS == Size when mlockall(MCL_CURRENT|MCL_FUTURE) was called. Could this explain the difference or is there something else that I'm missing here?
Thanks. --Mark H Johnson <mailto:Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |