From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 23:00:06 -0700 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] use pinned_vm instead of locked_vm to account pinned pages Message-ID: <20190214060006.GE24692@ziepe.ca> References: <20190211224437.25267-1-daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com> <20190211225447.GN24692@ziepe.ca> <20190214015314.GB1151@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190214015314.GB1151@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> To: Ira Weiny Cc: Daniel Jordan , akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz, cl@linux.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alex.williamson@redhat.com, paulus@ozlabs.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, hao.wu@intel.com, atull@kernel.org, mdf@kernel.org, aik@ozlabs.ru List-ID: On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 05:53:14PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 03:54:47PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 05:44:32PM -0500, Daniel Jordan wrote: > > > > > All five of these places, and probably some of Davidlohr's conversions, > > > probably want to be collapsed into a common helper in the core mm for > > > accounting pinned pages. I tried, and there are several details that > > > likely need discussion, so this can be done as a follow-on. > > > > I've wondered the same.. > > I'm really thinking this would be a nice way to ensure it gets cleaned up and > does not happen again. > > Also, by moving it to the core we could better manage any user visible changes. > > From a high level, pinned is a subset of locked so it seems like we need a 2 > sets of helpers. > > try_increment_locked_vm(...) > decrement_locked_vm(...) > > try_increment_pinned_vm(...) > decrement_pinned_vm(...) > > Where try_increment_pinned_vm() also increments locked_vm... Of course this > may end up reverting the improvement of Davidlohr Bueso's atomic work... :-( > > Furthermore it would seem better (although I don't know if at all possible) if > this were accounted for in core calls which tracked them based on how the pages > are being used so that drivers can't call try_increment_locked_vm() and then > pin the pages... Thus getting the account wrong vs what actually happened. > > And then in the end we can go back to locked_vm being the value checked against > RLIMIT_MEMLOCK. Someone would need to understand the bug that was fixed by splitting them. I think it had to do with double accounting pinned and mlocked pages and thus delivering a lower than expected limit to userspace. vfio has this bug, RDMA does not. RDMA has a bug where it can overallocate locked memory, vfio doesn't. Really unclear how to fix this. The pinned/locked split with two buckets may be the right way. Jason