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:

> 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?

Regards.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-08 11:11    [W:0.051 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site