I got a copy of the original mail just fine. A lot of folks have been reporting sending mails and not getting them... or getting many many copies of a mail. Brad; will our schedules overlap soon? :)
Anyway, from the man page: Memory locks are not inherited by a child created via fork(2) and are automatically removed (unlocked) during an execve(2) or when the process terminates. --- And eyeballing the code, that's totally right. -k was fixed once already by Tomash, but I guess we now know he runs memcached in the foreground :) Fix tested and pushed to stable svn and stable git: http://consoleninja.net/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?p=memcached.git;a=commit;h=7391190f7ff652e662a490d4ca0409dc33fba283 -Dormando Brad Fitzpatrick wrote: > Alan, somebody, > > Want to look into this? (I'm told it was sent to the list, but was > eaten....) > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Gary Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Is there any reason to NOT lock down paged memory, when running > memcached as daemon ? > > > > With current code, -d will effectively ignore –k. > > > > I re-arranged the current code as following: > > From: > > mlockall > > setuid > > daemon > > …child process… > > init > > > > To : > > daemon > > …child process … > > mlockall > > setuid > > init > > > > This made –d to work with –k. > > > > The reason is that forked child process does not inherit mlock. The > modified code worked as expected on Solaris 10 and Linux 2.6.x . > > > > Let me know any downside of the change. > > > > - Gary > > > >
