Re: [PATCH][RFC] add MAP_UNLOCKED mmap flag

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 07:27:56PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 07:11:06PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

quoted

Hi

quoted

If application does mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) it is no longer possible to
mmap file bigger than main memory or allocate big area of anonymous
memory. Sometimes it is desirable to lock everything related to program
execution into memory, but still be able to mmap big file or allocate
huge amount of memory and allow OS to swap them on demand. MAP_UNLOCKED
allows to do that.

Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov <redacted>

Why don't you use explicit munlock()?

Because mmap will fail before I'll have a chance to run munlock on it.
Actually when I run my process inside memory limited container host dies
(I suppose trashing, but haven't checked).

quoted

Plus, Can you please elabrate which workload nedd this feature?

I wanted to run kvm with qemu process locked in memory, but guest memory
unlocked. And guest memory is bigger then host memory in the case I am
testing. I found out that it is impossible currently.

1. process creation (qemu)
2. load all library

Can't control this if program has plugging. Not qemu case
though.

3. mlockall(MCL_CURRENT)
4. load guest OS

And what about all other allocations qemu does during its life time? Not
all of them will be small enough to be from brk area.

is impossible? why?

Because what you are proposing is not the same as mlockall(MCL_CURRENT|MCL_FUTURE);
You essentially say that MCL_FUTURE is not needed.

--
			Gleb.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>