Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1189997 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH V4 2/6] mm: mlock: Add new mlock, munlock, and munlockall system calls

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH V4 2/6] mm: mlock: Add new mlock, munlock, and munlockall  system calls Eric B Munson <emunson@akamai.com> - 2015-07-22 16:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH V4 2/6] mm: mlock: Add new mlock, munlock, and munlockall  system calls Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> - 2015-07-23 09:00 +0200

#1189997 — Re: [PATCH V4 2/6] mm: mlock: Add new mlock, munlock, and munlockall system calls

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Michael Ellerman wrote:

> On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 13:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:59:37 -0400 Eric B Munson <emunson@akamai.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > With the refactored mlock code, introduce new system calls for mlock,
> > > munlock, and munlockall.  The new calls will allow the user to specify
> > > what lock states are being added or cleared.  mlock2 and munlock2 are
> > > trivial at the moment, but a follow on patch will add a new mlock state
> > > making them useful.
> > > 
> > > munlock2 addresses a limitation of the current implementation.  If a
> > > user calls mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE) and then later decides
> > > that MCL_FUTURE should be removed, they would have to call munlockall()
> > > followed by mlockall(MCL_CURRENT) which could potentially be very
> > > expensive.  The new munlockall2 system call allows a user to simply
> > > clear the MCL_FUTURE flag.
> > 
> > This is hard.  Maybe we shouldn't have wired up anything other than
> > x86.  That's what we usually do with new syscalls.
> 
> Yeah I think so.
> 
> You haven't wired it up properly on powerpc, but I haven't mentioned it because
> I'd rather we did it.
> 
> cheers

It looks like I will be spinning a V5, so I will drop all but the x86
system calls additions in that version.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1190668

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:15:01AM -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:

> > 
> > You haven't wired it up properly on powerpc, but I haven't mentioned it because
> > I'd rather we did it.
> > 
> > cheers
> 
> It looks like I will be spinning a V5, so I will drop all but the x86
> system calls additions in that version.

The MIPS bits are looking good however, so

Acked-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>

With my ack, will you keep them or maybe carry them as a separate patch?

Cheers,

  Ralf
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web