Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Bug] mlockall() not working properly in 2.6.x | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:47:30 +0000 |
| |
On Llu, 2005-12-19 at 18:27 +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > > that we did this because inheriting MCL_FUTURE is standards-incorrect. > > > > Oh! So how can I make programs unswappable with kernel 2.6.x then? > > That would mean that you cannot just exec() another program that will > also be mlockall()ed. The new program has to do that on its own...
mlockall MCL_FUTURE applies to this image only and the 2.6 behaviour is correct if less useful in some ways. It would be possible to add an inheriting MCL_ flag that was Linux specific but then how do you control the depth of inheritance ? If that isn't an issue it looks the easiest.
Another possibility would be pmlockall(pid, flag), but that looks even more nasty if it races an exec.
- 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/
| |