From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f70.google.com (mail-wm0-f70.google.com [74.125.82.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61506B026F for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:42:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f70.google.com with SMTP id e128so3393194wmg.1 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:42:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 31si3781293edr.330.2017.11.30.09.42.03 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:42:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:42:01 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] mm: introduce get_user_pages_longterm Message-ID: <20171130174201.stbpuye4gu5rxwkm@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <151197872943.26211.6551382719053304996.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <151197873499.26211.11687422577653326365.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <20171130095323.ovrq2nenb6ztiapy@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dan Williams Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux MM , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Christoph Hellwig , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" On Thu 30-11-17 08:39:51, Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 29-11-17 10:05:35, Dan Williams wrote: > >> Until there is a solution to the dma-to-dax vs truncate problem it is > >> not safe to allow long standing memory registrations against > >> filesytem-dax vmas. Device-dax vmas do not have this problem and are > >> explicitly allowed. > >> > >> This is temporary until a "memory registration with layout-lease" > >> mechanism can be implemented for the affected sub-systems (RDMA and > >> V4L2). > > > > One thing is not clear to me. Who is allowed to pin pages for ever? > > Is it possible to pin LRU pages that way as well? If yes then there > > absolutely has to be a limit for that. Sorry I could have studied the > > code much more but from a quick glance it seems to me that this is not > > limited to dax (or non-LRU in general) pages. > > I would turn this question around. "who can not tolerate a page being > pinned forever?". Any struct page on the movable zone or anything that is living on the LRU list because such a memory is unreclaimable. > In the case of filesytem-dax a page is > one-in-the-same object as a filesystem-block, and a filesystem expects > that its operations will not be blocked indefinitely. LRU pages can > continue to be pinned indefinitely because operations can continue > around the pinned page, i.e. every agent, save for the dma agent, > drops their reference to the page and its tolerable that the final > put_page() never arrives. I do not understand. Are you saying that a user triggered IO can pin LRU pages indefinitely. This would be _really_ wrong. It would be basically an mlock without any limit. So I must be misreading you here > As far as I can tell it's only filesystems > and dax that have this collision of wanting to revoke dma access to a > page combined with not being able to wait indefinitely for dma to > quiesce. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org