:
:Matt Dillon wrote:
:>
:> You may be able to achieve an effect very similar to mlock(), but
:> runnable by the 'news' user without hacking the kernel, by
:> writing a quick little C program to mmap() the two smaller history
:> files and then madvise() the map using MADV_WILLNEED in a loop
:> with a sleep(15). Keeping in mind that expire may recreate those
:> files, the program should unmap, close(), and re-open()/mmap/madvise the
:> descriptors every so often (like once a minute). You shouldn't have
:> to access the underlying pages but that would also have a similar
:> effect. If you do, use a volatile pointer so GCC doesn't optimize
:> the access out of the loop. e.g.
:
:Err... wouldn't it be better to write a quick little C program that
:mlocked the files? It would need suid, sure, but as a small program
:without user input it wouldn't have security problems.
:
:--
:Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mlock()ing is dangerous when used on a cyclic file. If you aren't
careful you can run your system out of memory.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
