[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6e3f4d81-dcb5-9a64-a9f8-2c9b319574ef@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 11:55:35 -0400
From: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Cc: alex.williamson@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
schnelle@...ux.ibm.com, farman@...ux.ibm.com, pmorel@...ux.ibm.com,
hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com, agordeev@...ux.ibm.com,
svens@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com,
imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, vneethv@...ux.ibm.com,
oberpar@...ux.ibm.com, freude@...ux.ibm.com, thuth@...hat.com,
pasic@...ux.ibm.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
jgg@...dia.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 14/21] KVM: s390: pci: provide routines for
enabling/disabling interrupt forwarding
On 5/6/22 11:35 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> Am 26.04.22 um 22:08 schrieb Matthew Rosato:
> [...]
>> +static inline void unaccount_mem(unsigned long nr_pages)
>> +{
>> + struct user_struct *user = get_uid(current_user());
>> +
>> + if (user)
>> + atomic_long_sub(nr_pages, &user->locked_vm);
>> + if (current->mm)
>> + atomic64_sub(nr_pages, ¤t->mm->pinned_vm);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int account_mem(unsigned long nr_pages)
>> +{
>> + struct user_struct *user = get_uid(current_user());
>> + unsigned long page_limit, cur_pages, new_pages;
>> +
>> + page_limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> +
>> + do {
>> + cur_pages = atomic_long_read(&user->locked_vm);
>> + new_pages = cur_pages + nr_pages;
>> + if (new_pages > page_limit)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + } while (atomic_long_cmpxchg(&user->locked_vm, cur_pages,
>> + new_pages) != cur_pages);
>> +
>> + atomic64_add(nr_pages, ¤t->mm->pinned_vm);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>
> user->locked_vm is not available unconditionally. Shall we add
>
> CONFIG_S390 && CONFIG_KVM here?
>
> include/linux/sched/user.h
> #if defined(CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS) || defined(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) || \
> defined(CONFIG_NET) || defined(CONFIG_IO_URING)
> atomic_long_t locked_vm;
> #endif
> Or we could get rid of the user memlock checking for now until this is
> more ubiquitous.
Oh, good catch. Per my conversation with Jason in a thread on patch 16,
we will end up with a CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_ZDEV_KVM (or something like that)
-- this could be used instead of CONFIG_S390 && CONFIG_KVM and would
imply both of those anyway
>
>
> Otherwise this looks sane
>
> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists