[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y9fEYNQOV0+iDvWJ@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 09:21:36 -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, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 09/19] io_uring: convert to use vm_account
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:12:43PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
>
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 04:42:38PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> >> Convert io_uring to use vm_account instead of directly charging pages
> >> against the user/mm. Rather than charge pages to both user->locked_vm
> >> and mm->pinned_vm this will only charge pages to user->locked_vm.
> >
> > I think this is a mistake in the first patch, the pinned_vm should
> > still increment (but not checked against the rlimit), though its main
> > purpose in this mode is for debugging in proc.
>
> Sorry, didn't quite follow - are you saying we should always increment
> mm->pinned_vm and only use VM_ACCOUNT_USER vs. TASK to select which one
> the rlimit is enforced against?
yes pinned_vm was created primarily a debugging counter in proc
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists