Re: [PATCH] mm: Revert pinned_vm braindamage
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Jun 20 2013 - 07:49:54 EST
* Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 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.
> Dont remember reviewing that. Assumptions were wrong in that patch then.
> > > 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.
> The pinning *cannot* be done from user space. Here it is the IB subsystem
> that is doing it.
Peter clearly pointed it out that in the perf case it's user-space that
initiates the pinned memory mapping which is resource-controlled via
RLIMIT_MEMLOCK - and this was implemented that way before your commit
broke the code.
You seem to be hell bent on defining 'memory pinning' only as "the thing
done via the mlock*() system calls", but that is a nonsensical distinction
that actively and incorrectly ignores other system calls that can and do
pin memory legitimately.
If some other system call results in mapping pinned memory that is at
least as restrictively pinned as an mlock()-ed vma (the perf syscall is
such) then it's entirely proper design to be resource controlled under
RLIMIT_MEMLOCK as well. In fact this worked so before your commit broke
> > > 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.
> I am sorry but we have been mlockall() for years now without the issues
> that you are bringing up. AFAICT mlockall does not require MCL_FUTURE.
You only have to read the mlockall() code to see that Peter's claim is
SYSCALL_DEFINE1(mlockall, int, flags)
unsigned long lock_limit;
int ret = -EINVAL;
if (!flags || (flags & ~(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE)))
ret = -EPERM;
if (rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) != 0)
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/