lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3][RFC] add MAP_UNLOCKED mmap flag
Date
Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 05:10:35PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > If application does mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) it is no longer possible to
>> > mmap file bigger than main memory or allocate big area of anonymous
>> > memory. Sometimes it is desirable to lock everything related to program
>> > execution into memory, but still be able to mmap big file or allocate
>> > huge amount of memory and allow OS to swap them on demand. MAP_UNLOCKED
>> > allows to do that.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
>> > index 73f5e4b..ecc4471 100644
>> > --- a/mm/mmap.c
>> > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
>> > @@ -985,6 +985,9 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
>> > if (!can_do_mlock())
>> > return -EPERM;
>> >
>> > + if (flags & MAP_UNLOCKED)
>> > + vm_flags &= ~VM_LOCKED;
>> > +
>> > /* mlock MCL_FUTURE? */
>> > if (vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) {
>> > unsigned long locked, lock_limit;
>>
>> So, if I read it correctly, it is perfectly legal to set
>> both MAP_LOCKED and MAP_UNLOCKED at the same time? While
>> the behavior is still same as only setting MAP_UNLOCKED.
>>
>> Is this what we expect?
>>
> This is what code does currently. Should we return EINVAL in this case?
>

I suppose to get an EINVAL.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-08 11:43    [W:0.042 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site