From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=RHZ4=QV=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE78CC43381
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 21:48:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3064D217F5
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 21:48:48 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3064D217F5
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440qlf1M1lzDqXt
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:48:46 +1100 (AEDT)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=intel.com
 (client-ip=134.134.136.65; helo=mga03.intel.com;
 envelope-from=ira.weiny@intel.com; receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 440qjg41GDzDqVd
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:47:01 +1100 (AEDT)
X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65])
 by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
 14 Feb 2019 13:46:58 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,370,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="118016118"
Received: from iweiny-desk2.sc.intel.com ([10.3.52.157])
 by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2019 13:46:57 -0800
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:46:51 -0800
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] use pinned_vm instead of locked_vm to account pinned
 pages
Message-ID: <20190214214650.GB7512@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
References: <20190211224437.25267-1-daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
 <20190211225447.GN24692@ziepe.ca>
 <20190214015314.GB1151@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190214060006.GE24692@ziepe.ca>
 <20190214193352.GA7512@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190214201231.GC1739@ziepe.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190214201231.GC1739@ziepe.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01)
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz, kvm@vger.kernel.org, atull@kernel.org,
 aik@ozlabs.ru, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, alex.williamson@redhat.com, mdf@kernel.org,
 akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, cl@linux.com,
 hao.wu@intel.com
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 01:12:31PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:33:53AM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> 
> > > I think it had to do with double accounting pinned and mlocked pages
> > > and thus delivering a lower than expected limit to userspace.
> > > 
> > > vfio has this bug, RDMA does not. RDMA has a bug where it can
> > > overallocate locked memory, vfio doesn't.
> > 
> > Wouldn't vfio also be able to overallocate if the user had RDMA pinned pages?
> 
> Yes
>  
> > I think the problem is that if the user calls mlock on a large range then both
> > vfio and RDMA could potentially overallocate even with this fix.  This was your
> > initial email to Daniel, I think...  And Alex's concern.
> 
> Here are the possibilities
> - mlock and pin on the same pages - RDMA respects the limit, VFIO halfs it.
> - mlock and pin on different pages - RDMA doubles the limit, VFIO
>   respects it
> - VFIO and RDMA in the same process, the limit is halfed or doubled, depending.
> 
> IHMO we should make VFIO & RDMA the same, and then decide what to do
> about case #2.

I'm not against that.  Sorry if I came across that way.  For this series I
agree we should make it consistent.

> 
> > > Really unclear how to fix this. The pinned/locked split with two
> > > buckets may be the right way.
> > 
> > Are you suggesting that we have 2 user limits?
> 
> This is what RDMA has done since CL's patch.

I don't understand?  What is the other _user_ limit (other than
RLIMIT_MEMLOCK)?

> 
> It is very hard to fix as you need to track how many pages are mlocked
> *AND* pinned.

Understood. :-/

Ira

> 
> Jason