Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:51:29 +0100 | From | Matthias Andree <> | Subject | Re: Rationale for RLIMIT_MEMLOCK? |
| |
Joerg Schilling schrieb am 2006-01-24:
> Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > And because this requirement is not specified in the relevant standards, > > > it is wrong to assume valloc() returns locked pages. > > > > is it? I sort of doubt that (but I'm not a standards expert, but I'd > > expect that "lock all in the future" applies to all memory, not just > > mmap'd memory > > I concur: > > Locking pages into core is a property/duty of the VM subsystem.
But where is this laid down in the standard? There must be some part that defines this, else we cannot rely on it. The wording for malloc() and mmap() or mlock() is different. One talks about address space and mapping, whereas malloc() talks about "storage".
Only I haven't got time to look for it now. Just that Solaris happens to do it doesn't make it a standard.
-- Matthias Andree - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |