Re: [RFC] mlock/stack guard interaction fixup

[Ian Jackson]

Peter Zijlstra writes ("Re: [RFC] mlock/stack guard interaction fixup"):
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 16:42 +0100, ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
> > mlocking the stack is entirely sensible and normal for a real-time
> > program.  Most such programs use mlockall but there is no particular
> > reason why a program that has some more specific requirements should
> > use mlock to lock only a part of the stack.  (Perhaps it has only one
> > real-time thread?) 
> 
> RT apps should pre-allocate and mlock their stack in advance (and
> pre-fault too for the paranoid).

Are you allowed to mlock a stack page which has not yet been faulted
in ?  What effect does it have ?  I wasn't able to find a convincing
de jure answer to this question.

But you seem, like me, to be disagreeing with Linus's assertion that
calling mlock() on the stack is something no sane programs does ?

> mlockall is a very bad interface and should really not be used.

You are directly contradicting the advice in SuS, to which I just gave
a reference.  You're free to do so of course but it might be worth
explaining in a bit more detail why the advice in SuS is wrong.

Ian.
--
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/