Hi Jeff, On 07/20, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > Hi, Oleg, > > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Shouldn't we account aio events/pages somehow, say per-user, or in > > mm->pinned_vm ? > > Ages ago I wrote a patch to account the completion ring to a process' > memlock limit: > "[patch] aio: remove aio-max-nr and instead use the memlock rlimit to > limit the number of pages pinned for the aio completion ring" > http://marc.info/?l=linux-aio&m=123661380807041&w=2 > > The problem with that patch is that it modifies the user/kernel > interface. It could be done over time, as Andrew outlined in that > thread, but I've been reluctant to take that on. See also the usage of mm->pinned_vm and user->locked_vm in perf_mmap(), perhaps aio can do the same... > If you just mean we should account the memory so that the right process > can be killed, that sounds like a good idea to me. Not sure we actually need this. I only meant that this looks confusing because this memory is actually locked but the kernel doesn't know this. And btw, I forgot to mention that I triggered OOM on the testing machine with only 512mb ram, and aio-max-nr was huge. So, once again, while this all doesn't look right to me, I do not think this is the real problem. Except the fact that an unpriviliged user can steal all aio-max-nr events. This probably worth fixing in any case. And if we accept the fact this memory is locked and if we properly account it, then may be we can just kill aio_migratepage(), aio_private_file(), and change aio_setup_ring() to simply use install_special_mapping(). This will greatly simplify the code. But let me remind that I know nothing about aio, so please don't take my thoughts seriously. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
