Re: [PATCH][0/8] (Targeting 2.6.17) Posix memory locking and balancedmlock-LRU semantic

[Nick Piggin]

Stone Wang wrote:
> Both one of my friends(who is working on a DBMS oriented from
> PostgreSQL) and i had encountered unexpected OOMs with mlock/mlockall.

I'm not sure this is a great idea. There are more conditions than just
mlock that prevent pages being reclaimed. Running out of swap, for
example, no swap, page temporarily pinned (in other words -- any duration
from fleeting to permanent). I think something _much_ simpler could be
done for a more general approach just to teach the VM to tolerate these
pages a bit better.

Also, supposing we do want this, I think there is a fairly significant
queue of mm stuff you need to line up behind... it is probably asking
too much to target 2.6.17 for such a significant change in any case.

But despite all that I looked though and have a few comments ;)
Kudos for jumping in and getting your hands dirty! It can be tricky code.

> The patch brings Linux with:
> 1. Posix mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall.
>    Get mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall to Posix definiton: transaction-like,
>    just as described in the manpage(2) of mlock/munlock/mlockall/munlockall.
>    Thus users of mlock system call series will always have an clear map of
>    mlocked areas.

In what way are we not now posix compliant now?

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/