[RESEND PATCH V2 0/3] Allow user to request memory to be locked on page fault

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:21:30 -0400 Eric B Munson <emunson at akamai.com> wrote:

> > Ditto mlockall(MCL_ONFAULT) followed by munlock().  I'm not sure
> > that even makes sense but the behaviour should be understood and
> > tested.
>
> I have extended the kselftest for lock-on-fault to try both of these
> scenarios and they work as expected.  The VMA is split and the VM
> flags are set appropriately for the resulting VMAs.

munlock() should do vma merging as well.  I *think* we implemented
that.  More tests for you to add ;)

How are you testing the vma merging and splitting, btw?  Parsing
the profcs files?

> > What's missing here is a syscall to set VM_LOCKONFAULT on an
> > arbitrary range of memory - mlock() for lock-on-fault.  It's a
> > shame that mlock() didn't take a `mode' argument.  Perhaps we
> > should add such a syscall - that would make the mmap flag unneeded
> > but I suppose it should be kept for symmetry.
> 
> Do you want such a system call as part of this set?  I would need some
> time to make sure I had thought through all the possible corners one
> could get into with such a call, so it would delay a V3 quite a bit.
> Otherwise I can send a V3 out immediately.

I think the way to look at this is to pretend that mm/mlock.c doesn't
exist and ask "how should we design these features".

And that would be:

- mmap() takes a `flags' argument: MAP_LOCKED|MAP_LOCKONFAULT.

- mlock() takes a `flags' argument.  Presently that's
  MLOCK_LOCKED|MLOCK_LOCKONFAULT.

- munlock() takes a `flags' arument.  MLOCK_LOCKED|MLOCK_LOCKONFAULT
  to specify which flags are being cleared.

- mlockall() and munlockall() ditto.


IOW, LOCKED and LOCKEDONFAULT are treated identically and independently.

Now, that's how we would have designed all this on day one.  And I
think we can do this now, by adding new mlock2() and munlock2()
syscalls.  And we may as well deprecate the old mlock() and munlock(),
not that this matters much.

*should* we do this?  I'm thinking "yes" - it's all pretty simple
boilerplate and wrappers and such, and it gets the interface correct,
and extensible.

What do others think?