[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171201160204.GI7754@ziepe.ca>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 09:02:04 -0700
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] mm: introduce get_user_pages_longterm
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:12:18AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 30-11-17 12:01:17, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:32:42AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > Who and how many LRU pages can pin that way and how do you prevent nasty
> > > > users to DoS systems this way?
> > >
> > > I assume this is something the RDMA community has had to contend with?
> > > I'm not an RDMA person, I'm just here to fix dax.
> >
> > The RDMA implementation respects the mlock rlimit
>
> OK, so then I am kind of lost in why do we need a special g-u-p variant.
> The documentation doesn't say and quite contrary it assumes that the
> caller knows what he is doing. This cannot be the right approach.
I thought it was because get_user_pages_longterm is supposed to fail
on DAX mappings?
And maybe we should think about moving the rlimit accounting into this
new function too someday?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists