Subject: Re: lazy mlock?
To: None <Richard.Earnshaw@buzzard.freeserve.co.uk>
From: Jason R Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 04/16/2002 15:22:01
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 11:03:15PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw 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.
ntpd(8) uses the mlockall(2) system call to do this... maybe we could
add 2 additional flags ... MCL_CURRENT_LAZY and MCL_FUTURE_LAZY which
implement your suggested semantics ... I don't think it would be that
hard to implement, but it's been a while since I implemented mlockall(2),
so I'd have to wrap my head around that code again...
-- Jason R. Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>