From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from deliverator.sgi.com (deliverator.sgi.com [204.94.214.10]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA01329 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 13:32:17 -0400 From: kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com (Kanoj Sarcar) Message-Id: <199905171731.KAA20435@google.engr.sgi.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] kanoj-mm2.0-2.2.9 unneccesary page force in by munlock Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 10:31:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "Linus Torvalds" at May 17, 99 09:11:19 am MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux-MM@kvack.org List-ID: > > > On Sun, 16 May 1999, Kanoj Sarcar wrote: > > > > Hmm, my logic was a little bit different. Note that you can call munlock() > > on a range even when a previous mlock() has not been done on the range (I > > think that's not an munlock error in POSIX). In 2.2.9, this would end up > > faulting in the pages, which doesn't need to happen ... (haven't really > > thought whether "root" can erroneously force memory deadlocks this way) > > Well, if you look closely, the mlock_fixup() routine tests whether > lockedness has changed and returns early if it hasn't.. So in your case > nothing at all would have been done.. > > Linus Indeed, it does, my mistake ... it still makes sense to clean up the code, as you mentioned originally ... Thanks. Kanoj kanoj@engr.sgi.com -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm my@address' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/