On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 13:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:59:37 -0400 Eric B Munson <emun...@akamai.com> wrote: > > > With the refactored mlock code, introduce new system calls for mlock, > > munlock, and munlockall. The new calls will allow the user to specify > > what lock states are being added or cleared. mlock2 and munlock2 are > > trivial at the moment, but a follow on patch will add a new mlock state > > making them useful. > > > > munlock2 addresses a limitation of the current implementation. If a > > user calls mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE) and then later decides > > that MCL_FUTURE should be removed, they would have to call munlockall() > > followed by mlockall(MCL_CURRENT) which could potentially be very > > expensive. The new munlockall2 system call allows a user to simply > > clear the MCL_FUTURE flag. > > This is hard. Maybe we shouldn't have wired up anything other than > x86. That's what we usually do with new syscalls.
Yeah I think so. You haven't wired it up properly on powerpc, but I haven't mentioned it because I'd rather we did it. cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
