Subject: Re: lazy mlock?
To: None <Richard.Earnshaw@buzzard.freeserve.co.uk>
From: Alfred Perlstein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/16/2002 15:16:57
* Richard Earnshaw <email@example.com> [020416 15:04] wrote:
> So, how hard would it be to add a syscall that would only lock a page into
> memory if it were really needed? That is, we start with an empty set of
> locked pages, then as a page is referenced it is loaded and locked in
> place (so that it won't be swapped out again later). This way, pages that
> aren't referenced will never be locked, and pages that are will only pay
> the fetch cost once (on first reference). For something like ntp this
> would surely be perfectly adequate.
I think you could achieve the same thing using mprotect(2) and
smarts in your signal handler to then mlock(2) the memory you
-Alfred Perlstein [firstname.lastname@example.org]
'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.'
Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/