[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Bug] mlockall() not working properly in 2.6.x
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 17:47 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> 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.

How about clearing MCL_FUTURE on fork but allow exec to inherit it?
That way a parent process could fork, mlockall in the child and exec a
memlocked child. A regular fork,exec by a memlocked parent would not
create a memlocked child.

Seems less messy than a new flag, while keeping the benefits.
Zan Lynx <>
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-19 19:42    [W:0.061 / U:39.428 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site