Re: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balancedmlock-LRU semantic
From: Nick Piggin
Date: Tue Mar 21 2006 - 07:52:48 EST
Stone Wang wrote:
Both one of my friends(who is working on a DBMS oriented from
PostgreSQL) and i had encountered unexpected OOMs with mlock/mlockall.
I'm not sure this is a great idea. There are more conditions than just
mlock that prevent pages being reclaimed. Running out of swap, for
example, no swap, page temporarily pinned (in other words -- any duration
from fleeting to permanent). I think something _much_ simpler could be
done for a more general approach just to teach the VM to tolerate these
pages a bit better.
Also, supposing we do want this, I think there is a fairly significant
queue of mm stuff you need to line up behind... it is probably asking
too much to target 2.6.17 for such a significant change in any case.
But despite all that I looked though and have a few comments ;)
Kudos for jumping in and getting your hands dirty! It can be tricky code.
The patch brings Linux with:
1. Posix mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall.
Get mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall to Posix definiton: transaction-like,
just as described in the manpage(2) of mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall.
Thus users of mlock system call series will always have an clear map of
In what way are we not now posix compliant now?
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/