Subject: Re: lazy mlock?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 04/17/2002 02:09:09
> instead of fixing faulty program that overallocate memory you like to
> add feature to kernel that will detect that.
I don't see it that way. I see it as a way to arrange to lock exactly
and only those pages that need locking: those that get used. It's also
not a question of overallocating, but rather of locking more than it
really has to because it doesn't have any good way of finding out what
the minimal set it has to lock is.
How would you say such a program should be "fixed"?
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML email@example.com
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B