From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:26:51 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] - support inheritance of mlocks across fork/exec Message-Id: <20081125152651.b4c3c18f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1227561707.6937.61.camel@lts-notebook> References: <1227561707.6937.61.camel@lts-notebook> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, riel@redhat.com, hugh@veritas.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl List-ID: On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:21:46 -0500 Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > PATCH/RFC - support inheritance of mlocks across fork/exec Linux actually used to do this by mistake. We fixed it in 2.3., iirc. > Against; 2.6.28-rc5-mmotm-081121 > > Add support for mlockall(MCL_INHERIT|MCL_RECURSIVE): > MCL_CURRENT|MCL_INHERIT - inherit memory locks across fork() > MCL_FUTURE|MCL_INHERIT - inherit "MCL_FUTURE" semantics across > fork() and exec(). > MCL_RECURSIVE - inherit across future generations. > > In support of a "lock prefix command"--e.g., mlock ... I spent some time scratching my head over what "MCL_RECURSIVE - inherit across future generations" means, then decided that I shouldn't need to scratch. This patch should get wider attention than just linux-mm denizens, methinks. So can you please beef up the MCL_RECURSIVE description, then resend the patch, also cc'ing linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org and linux-arch@vger.kernel.org? Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org