On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 04:17:30PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > Recently we have observed high latency in mlock() in our generic > library and noticed that users have started using tmpfs files even > without swap and the latency was due to expensive remote LRU cache > draining.
Hm. Isn't the point of mlock() to pay price upfront and make execution smoother after this? With this you shift latency onto reclaim (and future memory allocation). I'm not sure if it's a win. -- Kirill A. Shutemov
