# Re: \[PATCH V4 2/6\] mm: mlock: Add new mlock, munlock, and munlockall system calls

- From: Eric B Munson \<hidden\>
- Date: 2015-07-22 14:15:10 
- List: linuxppc-dev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2015/07/4540594
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-m68k/2015/07/4540043/t.md

```text
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 [ref] 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.
```

## Attachments

- [signature.asc](https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2015/07/4540594/attachment/0) (application/pgp-signature, 819 bytes)