On Thu 25-04-19 13:39:01, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote: > > Besides that you inherently assume that the user would do mlock because > > you do not try to wipe the swap content. Is this intentional? > > Yes, given MADV_DONTDUMP doesn't imply mlock I thought it'd be more > consistent to keep those independent.
Do we want to fail madvise call on VMAs that are not mlocked then? What if the munlock happens later after the madvise is called? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
