Let's try to get this wrapped up?
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:43:51 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Patch bc3e53f682 ("mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages")
> broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
I rather like what bc3e53f682 did, actually. RLIMIT_MEMLOCK limits the
amount of memory you can mlock(). Nice and simple.
This pinning thing which infiniband/perf are doing is conceptually
different and if we care at all, perhaps we should be looking at adding
RLIMIT_PINNED.
> Before that patch: mm_struct::locked_vm < RLIMIT_MEMLOCK; after that
> patch we have: mm_struct::locked_vm < RLIMIT_MEMLOCK &&
> mm_struct::pinned_vm < RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
But this is a policy decision which was implemented in perf_mmap() and
perf can alter that decision. How bad would it be if perf just ignored
RLIMIT_MEMLOCK?
drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_user_pages.c has issues, btw. It
compares the amount-to-be-pinned with rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK), but
forgets to also look at current->mm->pinned_vm. Duh.
It also does the pinned accounting in __qib_get_user_pages() but in
__qib_release_user_pages(), the caller is supposed to do it, which is
rather awkward.
Longer-term I don't think that inifinband or perf should be dinking
around with rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) or ->pinned_vm. Those policy
decisions should be hoisted into a core mm helper where we can do it
uniformly (and more correctly than infiniband's attempt!).
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>