On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Michael Ellerman wrote: > 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
It looks like I will be spinning a V5, so I will drop all but the x86 system calls additions in that version.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
