Hello John,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 04:43:58PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 06/12/2013 11:28 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >Hey John,
> >
> >On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 09:22:47PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >>At lsf-mm, the issue was brought up that there is a precedence with
> >>interfaces like mlock,
On 06/12/2013 11:28 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hey John,
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 09:22:47PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
At lsf-mm, the issue was brought up that there is a precedence with
interfaces like mlock, such that new mappings in a pre-existing range
do no inherit the mlock state.
This is mos
Hey John,
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 09:22:47PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> At lsf-mm, the issue was brought up that there is a precedence with
> interfaces like mlock, such that new mappings in a pre-existing range
> do no inherit the mlock state.
>
> This is mostly because mlock only modifies the
At lsf-mm, the issue was brought up that there is a precedence with
interfaces like mlock, such that new mappings in a pre-existing range
do no inherit the mlock state.
This is mostly because mlock only modifies the existing vmas, and so
any new mmaps create new vmas, which won't be mlocked.
Sinc
4 matches
Mail list logo
