[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: can't mlockall() more than 128MB, is this a kernel limitiation ?
From:       "Robert H. de Vries" <rhdv () rhdv ! cistron ! nl>
Date:       2000-08-06 12:51:03
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, 06 Aug 2000, Benno Senoner wrote:

>But even if the bogus check will be deleted, I think it would perhaps be
> handy to specify a "saefty margin" of non mlock-able mem, or the kernel
> will in some cases not have any phys pages left for swapping in and out
> mem.
>But the same applies to the memory overcommit problem.
>
>What would the optimal tradeoff look like ?
>BTW: any idea how other UNICES solve this problem ?

IRIX 6.5.x has a kernel parameter limiting the amount of memory an ordinary 
user can lock. In case a user goes over this maximum the mlockall call will 
fail. In case the user has specified MCL_FUTURE, a SIGSEGV will be raised 
with a special code. (At least that is what they say they do, but in reality 
this doesn't work).
IMHO, an ordinary user may only lock a limited amount of memory. Maybe it is 
wise to specify a certain amount which may *not* be locked. This memory is 
reserved for the rest of the processes.

	Robert

-- 
Robert de Vries
rhdv@rhdv.cistron.nl

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]