[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [lvm-devel] LVM2 tools/lvmcmdlib.c lib/mm/memlock.h lib/mm ...



Marian Csontos <mcsontos redhat com> writes:
> Why not to zero _memlock_count here (and _memlock_count_daemon below)?
> IMO, simple log_error is not enough. Though I understand this should not happen
> under any conditions, the Murphy's Law says it will happen. And when it
> happens...
>
> ...dropping below zero, will result in subsequent memlock_inc/memloc_inc_daemon
> having no effect. (Q: How serious is this condition? Could it result in data
> corruption?)
When the value is out of sync once, there's no really good way to
recover. Too high will prevent scans, too low will cause deadlocks, the
result always being non-functional code.

> On the other hand, if it were zeroed, the possible deadlock could be
> the only result.  However, this could happen only when memory is
> unlocked before it is locked.
See above.

>> +/*
>> + * The memlock_*_daemon functions will force the mlockall() call that we need
>> + * to stay in memory, but they will have no effect on device scans (unlike
>> + * normal memlock_inc and memlock_dec). Memory is kept locked as long as either
>> + * of memlock or memlock_daemon is in effect.
>> + */
>>    
> Q: It does not work as proposed now. Does the "will" mean it will once
> implemented?
Why not? As far as I can tell, this works as advertised, and testing
confirms that.

Yours,
   Petr.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]