On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 10:18:51AM +0000, Bernard Metzler wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 1:32 PM
> > To: Maxim Samoylov <max7255@xxxxxxxx>; Bernard Metzler
> > <BMT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Dennis Dalessandro
> > <dennis.dalessandro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx>; Christian Benvenuti <benve@xxxxxxxxx>;
> > Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v2] IB: rework memlock limit handling code
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 01:30:27PM +0000, Maxim Samoylov wrote:
> > > On 23/10/2023 07:52, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 09:40:16AM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 10/15/23 17:19, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > >>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 01:29:21AM -0700, Maxim Samoylov wrote:
> > > >>>> This patch provides the uniform handling for RLIM_INFINITY value
> > > >>>> across the infiniband/rdma subsystem.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Currently in some cases the infinity constant is treated
> > > >>>> as an actual limit value, which could be misleading.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Let's also provide the single helper to check against process
> > > >>>> MEMLOCK limit while registering user memory region mappings.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Maxim Samoylov<max7255@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >>>> ---
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> v1 -> v2: rewritten commit message, rebased on recent upstream
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c | 7 ++-----
> > > >>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/qib/qib_user_pages.c | 7 +++----
> > > >>>> drivers/infiniband/hw/usnic/usnic_uiom.c | 6 ++----
> > > >>>> drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_mem.c | 6 +++---
> > > >>>> drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_verbs.c | 23 ++++++++++-------
> > -----
> > > >>>> include/rdma/ib_umem.h | 11 +++++++++++
> > > >>>> 6 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> > > >>> <...>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> @@ -1321,8 +1322,8 @@ struct ib_mr *siw_reg_user_mr(struct ib_pd
> > *pd, u64 start, u64 len,
> > > >>>> struct siw_umem *umem = NULL;
> > > >>>> struct siw_ureq_reg_mr ureq;
> > > >>>> struct siw_device *sdev = to_siw_dev(pd->device);
> > > >>>> -
> > > >>>> - unsigned long mem_limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK);
> > > >>>> + unsigned long num_pages =
> > > >>>> + (PAGE_ALIGN(len + (start & ~PAGE_MASK))) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > >>>> int rv;
> > > >>>> siw_dbg_pd(pd, "start: 0x%pK, va: 0x%pK, len: %llu\n",
> > > >>>> @@ -1338,19 +1339,15 @@ struct ib_mr *siw_reg_user_mr(struct ib_pd
> > *pd, u64 start, u64 len,
> > > >>>> rv = -EINVAL;
> > > >>>> goto err_out;
> > > >>>> }
> > > >>>> - if (mem_limit != RLIM_INFINITY) {
> > > >>>> - unsigned long num_pages =
> > > >>>> - (PAGE_ALIGN(len + (start & ~PAGE_MASK))) >>
> > PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > >>>> - mem_limit >>= PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > >>>> - if (num_pages > mem_limit - current->mm->locked_vm) {
> > > >>>> - siw_dbg_pd(pd, "pages req %lu, max %lu, lock %lu\n",
> > > >>>> - num_pages, mem_limit,
> > > >>>> - current->mm->locked_vm);
> > > >>>> - rv = -ENOMEM;
> > > >>>> - goto err_out;
> > > >>>> - }
> > > >>>> + if (!ib_umem_check_rlimit_memlock(num_pages + current->mm-
> > >locked_vm)) {
> > > >>>> + siw_dbg_pd(pd, "pages req %lu, max %lu, lock %lu\n",
> > > >>>> + num_pages, rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK),
> > > >>>> + current->mm->locked_vm);
> > > >>>> + rv = -ENOMEM;
> > > >>>> + goto err_out;
> > > >>>> }
> > > >>> Sorry for late response, but why does this hunk exist in first place?
>
>
> If using ib_umem_get() for siw, as I sent as for-next
> patch yesterday, we can drop that logic completely, since we now
> have it in ib_umem_get(). It was only there because of not
> using ib_umem_get().
>
> I can resend my pending for-next patch as a patch to current,
> also removing memlock check (I simply forgot to remove it).
> Not sure if it would obsolete this patch here completely.
> Leon, please advise.
We are in the middle of merge window, so won't take any patches except
bug fixes.
So please, resend your patch after after merge window ends.
Thanks
>
> Otherwise:
>
> Acked-by: Bernard Metzler <bmt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> > > >>>
> > >
> > > Trailing newline, will definitely drop it.
> > >
> > > >>>> +
> > > >>>> umem = siw_umem_get(start, len, ib_access_writable(rights));
> > > >>> This should be ib_umem_get().
> > > >>
> > > >> IMO, it deserves a separate patch, and replace siw_umem_get with
> > ib_umem_get
> > > >> is not straightforward given siw_mem has two types of memory (pbl and
> > umem).
> > > >
> > > > The thing is that once you convince yourself that SIW should use
> > ib_umem_get(),
> > > > the same question will arise for other parts of this patch where
> > > > ib_umem_check_rlimit_memlock() is used.
> > > >
> > > > And if we eliminate them all, there won't be a need for this new API
> > call at all.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > So, as for 31.10.2023 I still see siw_umem_get() call used in
> > > linux-rdma repo in "for-next" branch.
> >
> > I hoped to hear some feedback from Bernard and Dennis.
> >
> > >
> > > AFAIU this helper call is used only in a single place and could
> > > potentially be replaced with ib_umem_get() as Leon suggests.
> > >
> > > But should we perform it right inside this memlock helper patch?
> > >
> > > I can submit later another patch with siw_umem_get() replaced
> > > if necessary.
> > >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Guoqing
> > >
