Re: [PATCH] Don't mlock guardpage if the stack is growing up

[Tony Luck]

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ahh, so you never actually have one single mapping that has both flags set?
>
> In that case, I won't even worry about it.

Definitely not for normal processes - I'm not sure how both stacks are
set up for threads.

> One thing I did want to verify: did the mlockall() actually change the
> stack size without that patch? Just to double-check that the patch
> actually did change semantics visibly.

On an unpatched system I see this (lots more than one page of growth -
pages are 64K on this config):
6007fffffff50000-6007fffffff70000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
6007fffffff50000-6008000000750000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0

On a patched system I see (this one has 16K pages - no growth)
600007ffff9d0000-600007ffff9d4000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
600007ffff9d0000-600007ffff9d4000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0

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