From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:16:30 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2.6.20-mm2] Optionally inherit mlockall() semantics across fork()/exec() In-Reply-To: <1172242682.5059.19.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <1172178237.5341.38.camel@localhost> <1172242682.5059.19.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: linux-mm List-ID: On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > The semantics of mlockall(), whether you use the '_CURRENT and/or the > '_FUTURE flag, apply to the entire address space of the process. [See > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7990989775/xsh/mlockall.html] The > patch enables inheritance of these semantics across fork() [CURRENT] and > exec() [FUTURE]. Ahh. I see. Then setting a flags in the vma would work? There is already logic to handle VM_LOCKED in mm/mlock.c and we keep on checking vma->vm_flags. Maybe add VM_LOCKED_FUTURE? -- 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