[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190214221629.GD1739@ziepe.ca>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:16:29 -0700
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dave@...olabs.net, jack@...e.cz,
cl@...ux.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
alex.williamson@...hat.com, paulus@...abs.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, hao.wu@...el.com,
atull@...nel.org, mdf@...nel.org, aik@...abs.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] use pinned_vm instead of locked_vm to account pinned
pages
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 01:46:51PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > > 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)?
With todays implementation RLIMIT_MEMLOCK covers two user limits,
total number of pinned pages and total number of mlocked pages. The
two are different buckets and not summed.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists