From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from neon.transmeta.com (neon-best.transmeta.com [206.184.214.10]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA00469 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 12:11:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:11:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] kanoj-mm2.0-2.2.9 unneccesary page force in by munlock In-Reply-To: <199905170616.XAA97025@google.engr.sgi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Kanoj Sarcar 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 -- 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/