LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
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 16:09:39 +0100
Message-ID: <d47fdd2e-a8fa-6792-ca8f-e529be76340c@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201115082625.GT4758@kernel.org>

On 15.11.20 09:26, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 09:15:18PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>>> Am 12.11.2020 um 20:08 schrieb Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 05:22:00PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 10.11.20 19:06, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 06:17:26PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>> On 10.11.20 16:14, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It will be used by the upcoming secret memory implementation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>    mm/internal.h | 3 +++
>>>>>>>    mm/mmap.c     | 5 ++---
>>>>>>>    2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
>>>>>>> index c43ccdddb0f6..ae146a260b14 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/mm/internal.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/internal.h
>>>>>>> @@ -348,6 +348,9 @@ static inline void munlock_vma_pages_all(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>>>>>>>    extern void mlock_vma_page(struct page *page);
>>>>>>>    extern unsigned int munlock_vma_page(struct page *page);
>>>>>>> +extern int mlock_future_check(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long flags,
>>>>>>> +                  unsigned long len);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>    /*
>>>>>>>     * Clear the page's PageMlocked().  This can be useful in a situation where
>>>>>>>     * we want to unconditionally remove a page from the pagecache -- e.g.,
>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
>>>>>>> index 61f72b09d990..c481f088bd50 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/mm/mmap.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
>>>>>>> @@ -1348,9 +1348,8 @@ static inline unsigned long round_hint_to_min(unsigned long hint)
>>>>>>>        return hint;
>>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>> -static inline int mlock_future_check(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>>>>> -                     unsigned long flags,
>>>>>>> -                     unsigned long len)
>>>>>>> +int mlock_future_check(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long flags,
>>>>>>> +               unsigned long len)
>>>>>>>    {
>>>>>>>        unsigned long locked, lock_limit;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, an interesting question is if you actually want to charge secretmem
>>>>>> pages against mlock now, or if you want a dedicated secretmem cgroup
>>>>>> controller instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, with the current implementation there are three limits an
>>>>> administrator can use to control secretmem limits: mlock, memcg and
>>>>> kernel parameter.
>>>>>
>>>>> The kernel parameter puts a global upper limit for secretmem usage,
>>>>> memcg accounts all secretmem allocations, including the unused memory in
>>>>> large pages caching and mlock allows per task limit for secretmem
>>>>> mappings, well, like mlock does.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't consider a dedicated cgroup, as it seems we already have enough
>>>>> existing knobs and a new one would be unnecessary.
>>>>
>>>> To me it feels like the mlock() limit is a wrong fit for secretmem. But
>>>> maybe there are other cases of using the mlock() limit without actually
>>>> doing mlock() that I am not aware of (most probably :) )?
>>>
>>> Secretmem does not explicitly calls to mlock() but it does what mlock()
>>> does and a bit more. Citing mlock(2):
>>>
>>>   mlock(),  mlock2(),  and  mlockall()  lock  part  or all of the calling
>>>   process's virtual address space into RAM, preventing that  memory  from
>>>   being paged to the swap area.
>>>
>>> So, based on that secretmem pages are not swappable, I think that
>>> RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is appropriate here.
>>>
>>
>> The page explicitly lists mlock() system calls.
> 
> Well, it's mlock() man page, isn't it? ;-)

;)

> 
> 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.

> 
>> 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.


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb


  reply index

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-10 15:14 [PATCH v8 0/9] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas Mike Rapoport
2020-11-10 15:14 ` [PATCH v8 1/9] mm: add definition of PMD_PAGE_ORDER Mike Rapoport
2020-11-10 15:14 ` [PATCH v8 2/9] mmap: make mlock_future_check() global Mike Rapoport
2020-11-10 17:17   ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-10 18:06     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-12 16:22       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-12 19:08         ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-12 20:15           ` David Hildenbrand
2020-11-15  8:26             ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-17 15:09               ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2020-11-17 15:58                 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-10 15:14 ` [PATCH v8 3/9] set_memory: allow set_direct_map_*_noflush() for multiple pages Mike Rapoport
2020-11-13 12:26   ` Catalin Marinas
2020-11-10 15:14 ` [PATCH v8 4/9] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas Mike Rapoport
2020-11-13 13:58   ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-11-15  8:53     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-13 14:06   ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-11-15  8:45     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-10 15:14 ` [PATCH v8 5/9] secretmem: use PMD-size pages to amortize direct map fragmentation Mike Rapoport
2020-11-10 15:14 ` [PATCH v8 6/9] secretmem: add memcg accounting Mike Rapoport
2020-11-13  1:35   ` Andrew Morton
2020-11-13 23:42   ` Roman Gushchin
2020-11-15  9:17     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-10 15:14 ` [PATCH v8 7/9] PM: hibernate: disable when there are active secretmem users Mike Rapoport
2020-11-10 15:14 ` [PATCH v8 8/9] arch, mm: wire up memfd_secret system call were relevant Mike Rapoport
2020-11-13 12:25   ` Catalin Marinas
2020-11-15  8:56     ` Mike Rapoport
2020-11-10 15:14 ` [PATCH v8 9/9] secretmem: test: add basic selftest for memfd_secret(2) Mike Rapoport
2020-11-12 14:56 ` [PATCH v8 0/9] mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret" memory areas Mike Rapoport

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=d47fdd2e-a8fa-6792-ca8f-e529be76340c@redhat.com \
    --to=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=elena.reshetova@intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tycho@tycho.ws \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0 lkml/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1 lkml/git/1.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2 lkml/git/2.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3 lkml/git/3.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4 lkml/git/4.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5 lkml/git/5.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6 lkml/git/6.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7 lkml/git/7.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8 lkml/git/8.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/9 lkml/git/9.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/10 lkml/git/10.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 lkml lkml/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml \
		linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index lkml

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git