[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8/uGL+TA7ow4Zmu@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:41:28 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jhubbard@...dia.com,
tjmercier@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org, surenb@...gle.com,
mkoutny@...e.com, daniel@...ll.ch,
Christian Benvenuti <benve@...co.com>,
Nelson Escobar <neescoba@...co.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/19] RDMA/usnic: convert to use vm_account
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 04:42:35PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/usnic/usnic_uiom.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/usnic/usnic_uiom.c
> index c301b3b..250276e 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/usnic/usnic_uiom.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/usnic/usnic_uiom.c
> @@ -89,8 +89,6 @@ static int usnic_uiom_get_pages(unsigned long addr, size_t size, int writable,
> struct page **page_list;
> struct scatterlist *sg;
> struct usnic_uiom_chunk *chunk;
> - unsigned long locked;
> - unsigned long lock_limit;
> unsigned long cur_base;
> unsigned long npages;
> int ret;
> @@ -123,10 +121,8 @@ static int usnic_uiom_get_pages(unsigned long addr, size_t size, int writable,
> uiomr->owning_mm = mm = current->mm;
> mmap_read_lock(mm);
>
> - locked = atomic64_add_return(npages, ¤t->mm->pinned_vm);
> - lock_limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> -
> - if ((locked > lock_limit) && !capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK)) {
> + vm_account_init_current(&uiomr->vm_account);
> + if (vm_account_pinned(&uiomr->vm_account, npages)) {
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> goto out;
> }
Is this error handling right? This driver tried to avoid the race by
using atomic64_add_return() but it means that the out label undoes the add:
> @@ -178,7 +174,8 @@ static int usnic_uiom_get_pages(unsigned long addr, size_t size, int writable,
> out:
> if (ret < 0) {
> usnic_uiom_put_pages(chunk_list, 0);
> - atomic64_sub(npages, ¤t->mm->pinned_vm);
Here
> + vm_unaccount_pinned(&uiomr->vm_account, npages);
> + vm_account_release(&uiomr->vm_account);
But with the new API we shouldn't call vm_unaccount_pinned() if
vm_account_pinned() doesn't succeed?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists