Re: [PATCH][RFC] add MAP_UNLOCKED mmap flag

[Gleb Natapov]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 07:27:56PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 07:11:06PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > > If application does mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) it is no longer possible to
> > > > mmap file bigger than main memory or allocate big area of anonymous
> > > > memory. Sometimes it is desirable to lock everything related to program
> > > > execution into memory, but still be able to mmap big file or allocate
> > > > huge amount of memory and allow OS to swap them on demand. MAP_UNLOCKED
> > > > allows to do that.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Why don't you use explicit munlock()?
> > Because mmap will fail before I'll have a chance to run munlock on it.
> > Actually when I run my process inside memory limited container host dies
> > (I suppose trashing, but haven't checked).
> > 
> > > Plus, Can you please elabrate which workload nedd this feature?
> > > 
> > I wanted to run kvm with qemu process locked in memory, but guest memory
> > unlocked. And guest memory is bigger then host memory in the case I am
> > testing. I found out that it is impossible currently.
> 
> 1. process creation (qemu)
> 2. load all library
Can't control this if program has plugging. Not qemu case
though.

> 3. mlockall(MCL_CURRENT)
> 4. load guest OS
And what about all other allocations qemu does during its life time? Not
all of them will be small enough to be from brk area.

> 
> is impossible? why?
> 
Because what you are proposing is not the same as mlockall(MCL_CURRENT|MCL_FUTURE);
You essentially say that MCL_FUTURE is not needed.

--
			Gleb.
--
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/