From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from burns.conectiva (burns.conectiva [10.0.0.4]) by perninha.conectiva.com.br (Postfix) with SMTP id E5ABA394B9 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:40:05 -0300 (EST) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:39:48 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH] recognize MAP_LOCKED in mmap() call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > >(SuS really only anticipates that mmap needs to look at prior mlocks > >in force against the address range. It also says > > > > Process memory locking does apply to shared memory regions, > > > >and we don't do that either. I think we should; can't see why SuS > >requires this.) > > Let me make sure I read what you said correctly. Does this mean that > Linux 2.4 (or 2.5) kernels do not lock shared memory regions if a > process uses mlockall? But it does. Linux won't evict memory that's MLOCKed... cheers, Rik -- Spamtrap of the month: september@surriel.com http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ -- 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/