lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: can't mlockall() more than 128MB, is this a kernel limitiation ?
Date
On Sun, 06 Aug 2000, Benno Senoner wrote:

>But even if the bogus check will be deleted, I think it would perhaps be
> handy to specify a "saefty margin" of non mlock-able mem, or the kernel
> will in some cases not have any phys pages left for swapping in and out
> mem.
>But the same applies to the memory overcommit problem.
>
>What would the optimal tradeoff look like ?
>BTW: any idea how other UNICES solve this problem ?

IRIX 6.5.x has a kernel parameter limiting the amount of memory an ordinary
user can lock. In case a user goes over this maximum the mlockall call will
fail. In case the user has specified MCL_FUTURE, a SIGSEGV will be raised
with a special code. (At least that is what they say they do, but in reality
this doesn't work).
IMHO, an ordinary user may only lock a limited amount of memory. Maybe it is
wise to specify a certain amount which may *not* be locked. This memory is
reserved for the rest of the processes.

Robert

--
Robert de Vries
rhdv@rhdv.cistron.nl

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.092 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site