VirtualLock issue
- From: Joseph M. Newcomer <newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:41:24 -0500
According to Knowledge Base article 94996, VirtualLock does *not* lock pages into physical
memory, but locks them into the working set. The documentation of VirtualLock still
claims that the pages are locked into physical memory, and article 94996 has been removed
from the Knowledge Base.
Does anyone have any idea what the truth is? Note that Microsoft's haphazard pruning of
important articles (while retaining hopelessly obsolete articles on 16-bit Windows 3.0)
may simply indicate incompetent database management (no surprises here), or they may have
actually changed the implementation to correspond to the documentation; there is no easy
way to tell at this point short of conducting some complex experiments.
Anyone have any idea what the real truth is here?
joe
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: VirtualLock issue
- From: David Lowndes
- Re: VirtualLock issue
- Prev by Date: Re: which win32 API can hide a file by changing its property?
- Next by Date: Re: How to Deploy MFC only based application?
- Previous by thread: Re: which win32 API can hide a file by changing its property?
- Next by thread: Re: VirtualLock issue
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
