Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] - support inheritance of mlocks across fork/exec V2 | From | Jon Masters <> | Date | Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:12:49 -0400 |
| |
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 13:49 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 14:04 -0500, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > > > > Add support for mlockall(MCL_INHERIT|MCL_RECURSIVE): > > > > FWIW, I really liked this patch series. And I think there is still value > > in a generic "mlock" wrapper utility that I can use. Sure, the later on > > containers suggestions are all wonderful in theory but I don't see that > > that went anywhere either (and I disagree that we can't trust people to > > use this right without doing silly things) - if I'm really right that > > this got dropped on the floor, can we resurrect it in .31 please? > > I guess Lee is really really busy now.
Who isn't? :)
> Can you make V3 patch instead?
I'm happy to rebase onto a recent kernel and repost if it's not something that's instantly going to get dropped on the floor. I thought about this patch series a few minutes ago when I found myself recompiling a certain piece of audio software and realized there's no reason I shouldn't just be able to e.g. just do the following:
mlock --all -- pulseaudio --start --high-priority=1
As a test of my sanity in this case, but there are other times when I'm running software on RT kernels and would love to have that as a wrapper to temporarily prevent a performance hit.
Jon.
| |