Re: [PATCH v8 2/9] mmap: make mlock_future_check() global

From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/9] mmap: make mlock_future_check() global
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 17:58:29 +0200
Message-ID: <20201117155829.GJ370813@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d47fdd2e-a8fa-6792-ca8f-e529be76340c@redhat.com>

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 04:09:39PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 15.11.20 09:26, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 09:15:18PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:

...

> > My thinking was that since secretmem does what mlock() does wrt
> > swapability, it should at least obey the same limit, i.e.
> > RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
> 
> Right, but at least currently, it behaves like any other CMA allocation
> (IIRC they are all unmovable and, therefore, not swappable). In the future,
> if pages would be movable (but not swappable), I guess it might makes more
> sense. I assume we never ever want to swap secretmem.
> 
> "man getrlimit" states for RLIMIT_MEMLOCK:
> 
> "This is the maximum number of bytes of memory that may be
>  locked into RAM.  [...] This limit affects
>  mlock(2), mlockall(2), and the mmap(2) MAP_LOCKED operation.
>  Since Linux 2.6.9, it also affects the shmctl(2) SHM_LOCK op‐
>  eration [...]"
> 
> So that place has to be updated as well I guess? Otherwise this might come
> as a surprise for users.

Sure.

> > 
> > > E.g., we also don‘t
> > > account for gigantic pages - which might be allocated from CMA and are
> > > not swappable.
> > Do you mean gigantic pages in hugetlbfs?
> 
> Yes
> 
> > It seems to me that hugetlbfs accounting is a completely different
> > story.
> 
> I'd say it is right now comparable to secretmem - which is why I though
> similar accounting would make sense.

IMHO, using RLIMIT_MEMLOCK and memcg is a more straightforward way than
a custom cgroup.

And if we'll see a need for additional mechanism, we can always add it.

> -- 
> Thanks,
> 
> David / dhildenb
> 
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.