On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:10:17PM +0200, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:59:52PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:50:54PM +0200, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:16:03PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > I did. It allows me to achieve something I can't now. Steps you provide
> > > > just don't fit my needs. I need all memory areas (current and feature)
> > > > to be
> > > > locked except one. Very big one. You propose to lock memory at some
> > > > arbitrary point and from that point on all newly mapped memory areas
> > > > will
> > > > be unlocked. Don't you see it is different?
> > >
> > > What about mlockall(MCL_CURRENT); mmap(...); mlockall(MCL_FUTURE);?
> > > Or toggle MCL_FUTURE if a mlockall call can stop it?
> > >
> > This may work. And MCL_FUTURE can be toggled, but this is not thread
> > safe.
>
> Just ensure that your one special mmap is done with the other threads
> not currently allocating stuff. It's probably a synchronization point
> for the whole process anyway.
>
How can you stop other threads and libraries from calling malloc()? And if
it is two special allocations? Or many mmap(big file)/munmap(big file)?
This is the same issue as opening file CLOEXEC atomically. Why not
prevent other thread from calling fork() instead of adding flags to
bunch of system calls.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
