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. OG. -- 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
