From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:16:29 -0700 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] use pinned_vm instead of locked_vm to account pinned pages Message-ID: <20190214221629.GD1739@ziepe.ca> References: <20190211224437.25267-1-daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com> <20190211225447.GN24692@ziepe.ca> <20190214015314.GB1151@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> <20190214060006.GE24692@ziepe.ca> <20190214193352.GA7512@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> <20190214201231.GC1739@ziepe.ca> <20190214214650.GB7512@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190214214650.GB7512@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 Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 01:46:51PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote: > > > > Really unclear how to fix this. The pinned/locked split with two > > > > buckets may be the right way. > > > > > > Are you suggesting that we have 2 user limits? > > > > This is what RDMA has done since CL's patch. > > I don't understand? What is the other _user_ limit (other than > RLIMIT_MEMLOCK)? With todays implementation RLIMIT_MEMLOCK covers two user limits, total number of pinned pages and total number of mlocked pages. The two are different buckets and not summed. Jason