[PATCH V5 0/7] Allow user to request memory to be locked on page fault
Eric B Munson
emunson at akamai.com
Mon Jul 27 23:35:55 AEST 2015
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/24/2015 11:28 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> >Changes from V4:
> >Drop all architectures for new sys call entries except x86[_64] and MIPS
> >Drop munlock2 and munlockall2
> >Make VM_LOCKONFAULT a modifier to VM_LOCKED only to simplify book keeping
> >Adjust tests to match
> Hi, thanks for considering my suggestions. Well, I do hope there
> were correct as API's are hard and I'm no API expert. But since
> API's are also impossible to change after merging, I'm sorry but
> I'll keep pestering for one last thing. Thanks again for persisting,
> I do believe it's for the good thing!
> The thing is that I still don't like that one has to call
> mlock2(MLOCK_LOCKED) to get the equivalent of the old mlock(). Why
> is that flag needed? We have two modes of locking now, and v5 no
> longer treats them separately in vma flags. But having two flags
> gives us four possible combinations, so two of them would serve
> nothing but to confuse the programmer IMHO. What will mlock2()
> without flags do? What will mlock2(MLOCK_LOCKED | MLOCK_ONFAULT) do?
> (Note I haven't studied the code yet, as having agreed on the API
> should come first. But I did suggest documenting these things more
> thoroughly too...)
> OK I checked now and both cases above seem to return EINVAL.
> So about the only point I see in MLOCK_LOCKED flag is parity with
> MAP_LOCKED for mmap(). But as Kirill said (and me before as well)
> MAP_LOCKED is broken anyway so we shouldn't twist the rest just of
> the API to keep the poor thing happier in its misery.
> Also note that AFAICS you don't have MCL_LOCKED for mlockall() so
> there's no full parity anyway. But please don't fix that by adding
> MCL_LOCKED :)
I have an MLOCK_LOCKED flag because I prefer an interface to be
explicit. The caller of mlock2() will be required to fill in the flags
argument regardless. I can drop the MLOCK_LOCKED flag with 0 being the
value for LOCKED, but I thought it easier to make clear what was going
on at any call to mlock2(). If user space defines a MLOCK_LOCKED that
happens to be 0, I suppose that would be okay.
We do actually have an MCL_LOCKED, we just call it MCL_CURRENT. Would
you prefer that I match the name in mlock2() (add MLOCK_CURRENT
Finally, on the question of MAP_LOCKONFAULT, do you just dislike
MAP_LOCKED and do not want to see it extended, or is this a NAK on the
set if that patch is included. I ask because I have to spin a V6 to get
the MLOCK flag declarations right, but I would prefer not to do a V7+.
If this is a NAK with, I can drop that patch and rework the tests to
cover without the mmap flag. Otherwise I want to keep it, I have an
internal user that would like to see it added.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Linuxppc-dev