Re: [PATCH] mm: Revert pinned_vm braindamage
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Mon Jun 17 2013 - 07:09:03 EST
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 02:52:05PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > However you twist this; your patch leaves an inconsistent mess. If you
> > really think they're two different things then you should have
> > introduced a second RLIMIT_MEMPIN to go along with your counter.
> Well continuing to repeat myself: I worked based on agreed upon
> characteristics of mlocked pages. The patch was there to address a
> brokenness in the mlock accounting because someone naively assumed that
> pinning = mlock.
They did no such thing; being one of those who wrote such code. I
expressly used RLIMIT_MEMLOCK for its the one limit userspace has to
limit pages that are exempt from paging.
> > I'll argue against such a thing; for I think that limiting the total
> > amount of pages a user can exempt from paging is the far more
> > userful/natural thing to measure/limit.
> Pinned pages are exempted by the kernel. A device driver or some other
> kernel process (reclaim, page migration, io etc) increase the page count.
> There is currently no consistent accounting for pinned pages. The
> vm_pinned counter was introduced to allow the largest pinners to track
> what they did.
No, not the largest, user space controlled pinnners. The thing that
makes all the difference is the _USER_ control.
> > > I said that the use of a PIN page flag would allow correct accounting if
> > > one wanted to interpret the limit the way you do.
> > You failed to explain how that would help any. With a pin page flag you
> > still need to find the mm to unaccount crap from. Also, all user
> > controlled address space ops operate on vmas.
> Pinning is kernel controlled...
That's pure bull; perf and IB have user controlled pinning.
> > > Page migration is not a page fault?
> > It introduces faults; what happens when a process hits the migration
> > pte? It gets a random delay and eventually services a minor fault to the
> > new page.
> Ok but this is similar to reclaim and other such things that are unmapping
Which are avoided by mlock() an mlock()ed page will (typically) not get
> > At which point the saw will have cut your finger off (going with the
> > most popular RT application ever -- that of a bandsaw and a laser beam).
> I am pretty confused by your newer notion of RT. RT was about high latency
> deterministic behavior I thought. RT was basically an abused marketing
> term and was referring to the bloating of the kernel with all sorts of
> fair stuff that slows us down. What happened to make you work on low
> latency stuff? There is some shift that you still need to go through to
> make that transition. Yes, you would want to avoid reclaim and all sorts
> of other stuff for low latency. So you disable auto NUMA, defrag etc to
> avoid these things.
Its about low latency deterministic stuff; its just that worst case
latency is more important than avg latency and hence some things get
more expensive on avg.
But we don't want to disable defrag, defrag is good for the general
health of the system. Also not all applications are RT; we want a kernel
that's able to run general purpose stuff along with some RT apps.
> > > > This leaves the RT people unhappy -- therefore _if_ we continue with
> > > > this Linux specific interpretation of mlock() we must introduce new
> > > > syscalls that implement the intended mlock() semantics.
> > >
> > > Intended means Peter's semantics?
> > No, I don't actually write RT applications. But I've had plenty of
> > arguments with RT people when I explained to them what our mlock()
> > actually does vs what they expected it to do.
> Ok Guess this is all new to you at this point. I am happy to see that you
> are willing to abandon your evil ways (although under pressure from your
> users) and are willing to put the low latency people now in the RT camp.
*sigh*.. we have shared goals up to a point. RT bounds and if possible
lowers the worst case latency. The worst case is absolutely most
important for us.
By doing so we often also lower the avg latency, but its not the primary
> > They're not happy. Aside from that; you HPC/HFT minimal latency lot
> > should very well appreciate the minimal interference stuff they do
> > actually expect.
> Sure we do and we know how to do things to work around the "fair
> scheduler" and other stuff. But you are breaking the basics of how we do
> things with your conflation of pinning and mlocking.
Baseless statement there; I've given a very clear and concise definition
of how I see mlock() and mpin() work together. You can't dismiss all
that and expect people to take you seriously.
And argue until your face is blue but IB and perf are very much user
> We do not migrate, do not allow defragmentation or reclaim when running
> low latency applications. These are non issues.
Sounds like you lot are a bunch of work-around hacks. We very much want
to allow running such applications without having to rebuild the kernel.
In fact we want to allow running apps that need these CONFIG things both
enabled and disabled.
And while page migration and defrag have CONFIG knobs, reclaim does not;
file based reclaim is unconditional (except as already noted when using
I just want to be able to have all that enabled and still have
applications be able to express their needs and be able to run.
> > Here we must disagree I fear; given that mlock() is of RT origin and RT
> > people very much want/expect mlock() to do what our proposed mpin() will
> > do.
> RT is a dirty word for me given the fairness and bloat issue. Not sure
> what you mean with that. mlock is a means to keep data in memory and not a
> magical wand that avoids all OS handling of the page.
RT is about bounded worst case latency, and a preference for that bound
to be as low as possible. That is all RT is and wants to be -- its
definitely not about fairness in any way shape or form.
But yes, the intention was very much for the page (and mapping) to be
left alone by the OS -- its unfortunate the specs wording don't clarify
> > > That cannot be so since mlocked pages need to be migratable.
> > I'm talking about the proposed mpin() stuff.
> Could you write that up in detail? I am not sure how this could work at
> this point.
*omg*.. I did. mpin() (and we'll include IB and perf here) is a stronger
mlock() in that it must avoid all faults, not only the major faults.
After that there's just implementation details; the proposed
implementation used VM_PINNED to tag the VMAs use user called mpin() on.
It will use get_user_pages() to acquire a ref and effect the actual
Below I also proposed we could pre-compact such regions into UNMOVABLE
But I don't much care about the implementation per-se. All I've been
really arguing for is semantics.
> > So I proposed most of the machinery that would be required to actually
> > implement the syscalls. Except that the IB code stumped me. In
> > particular I cannot easily find the userspace address to unpin for
> > ipath/qib release paths.
> > Once we have that we can trivially implement the syscalls.
> Why would you need syscalls? Pinning is driver/kernel subsystem initiated
> and therefore the driver can do the pin/unpin calls.
mpin()/munpin() syscalls so userspace can effect the same on their
> > > Pinning is not initiated by user space but by the kernel. Either
> > > temporarily (page count increases are used all over the kernel for this)
> > > or for longer time frame (IB and Perf and likely more drivers that we have
> > > not found yet).
> > Here I disagree, I'll argue that all pins that require userspace action
> > to go away are userspace controlled pins. This makes IB/Perf user
> > controlled pins and should thus be treated the same as mpin()/munpin()
> > calls.
> Both IB and Perf are kernel subsystems that pin as a side effect of
> another syscall.
Yeah so? You still have user controlled pinning; the kernel can not rid
of these resources on its own
> > This goes back to what you want the limit to mean; I think a single
> > limit counting all pages exempt from paging is the far more useful
> > limit.
> Then you first need to show that the scheme account for *all* pages exempt
> from paging. This includes dirty pages and various pages of other
> subsystems that have an increased refcount in order to keep these pages
> were they are. We need a couple of passes through the kernel to find these
> locations and build up counter for these. Not all of these pages will be
> associated with processes.
All _user_ controlled pages exempt from paging. This would be mlock() +
IB + perf. AFAIK there's nothing else that a user can do to exempt pages
Our big disconnect seems to be user controlled vs kernel controlled.
Why do you care about kernel pins? Those are transient are they not?
> > The only way to get an MCL_FUTURE is through CAP_IPC_LOCK. Practically
> > most MCL_CURRENT are also larger than RLIMIT_MEMLOCK and this also
> > requires CAP_IPC_LOCK.
> > Once you have CAP_IPC_LOCK, RLIMIT_MEMLOCK becomes irrelevant.
> mlockall does not require CAP_IPC_LOCK. Never had an issue.
MCL_FUTURE does absolutely require CAP_IPC_LOCK, MCL_CURRENT requires a
huge (as opposed to the default 64k) RLIMIT or CAP_IPC_LOCK.
There's no argument there, look at the code.
> > > The semantics we agreed upon for mlock were that they are migratable.
> > > Pinned pages cannot be migrated and therefore are not mlocked pages.
> > > It would be best to have two different mechanisms for this.
> > Best for whoem? How is making two RLIMIT settings better than having
> > one?
> The pinned pages do not need to have a separate limit. They are kernel
> resources and could be bounded in other ways together with other resources
> that could cause danger to the kernel (such as too many dirty pages).
> Pinned pages are often not associated with a process.
So why is grouping user spaced pinned pages with mlock()ed pages such a
bad idea? Both can cause vm deadlocks for not allowing to reclaim pages.
Note that throughout I've been talking about user space controlled pins;
I really don't see a problem with kernel pins, which are by and large
small and transient.
> > > We do not need a new API.
> > This is in direct contradiction with your earlier statement where you
> > say: "I agree that we need mpin and munpin.".
> > Please make up your mind.
> Yes we need mpin and munpin as a in kernel API. Glad to clue you in.
Dude,.. my VM_PINNED patch had that; its you who seems to be somewhat
slow of whit here.
> > > Having the ability in
> > > general to move processes is a degree of control that we want. Pinning
> > > could be restricted to where it is required by the hardware.
> > Or software; you cannot blindly dismiss realtime guarantees the software
> > needs to provide.
> I cringe when I hear realtime guarantees and intending that to refer to
> low latency.... But maybe they turned you finally? And I may just feeling
> my decade old frustration with your old approach to "realtime".
> What do you exactly mean by realtime guarantees? (Given that "realtime" is
> such an overloaded marketing term).
Bounded and preferred low as possible worst case latency. The bound
gives determinism the second finer resolution.
Yes there's a whole host of various real world realtime software
constraints. There's the hard realtime case where if you miss a deadline
the world 'ends' -- tokamak EM control for nuclear fusion; the band saw
vs finger thing etc. And there's soft realtime in a hundred different
shades but its generally understood to mean stuff that can recover from
We want to cater to all those people and thus typically focus on the
Now a RT application will typically have a large !RT part; it will log
data, maybe update decision matrices, talk to other computers etc..
So while we want our self driving car to not collide with stuff, we also
want to map the road, download maps, track other moving objects etc. Not
all of that has the same constraints; sensor data must always precede
maps if at all available, mapping/updating maps isn't at all important
but nice to have etc.
Such systems would like as full a general purpose system as possible
that is still able to provide guarantees where required.
Therefore its desired to have 'nonsense' like compaction etc. enabled.
> > > Excessive amounts of pinned pages limit the ability of the kernel
> > > to manage its memory severely which may cause instabilities. mlocked pages
> > > are better because the kernel still has some options.
> > I'm not arguing which are better; I've even conceded we need mpin() and
> > can keep the current mlock() semantics. I'm arguing for what we _need_.
> We need the kernel to track the pinned pages (all of them not just those
> from IB and perf) and provide proper global boundaries to avoid kernel
> failures. Yes.
That's not what I said. Also you failed to provide rationale for your
desire to do so. Why would we need to track the transient kernel pins?
Those will go away on themselves.
The IB/perf/mpin() pins are special in that they're dependent on
userspace and will not go away on their own. Also they need to be
limited lest userspace would consume too much of them and VM deadlocks
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/