linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/19] mm: Introduce a cgroup to limit the amount of locked and pinned memory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2e78d261-9ae9-d203-446e-eaa3c652ca6e@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2023 15:06:10 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, 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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/19] mm: Introduce a cgroup to limit the amount of
 locked and pinned memory

On 31.01.23 15:03, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 02:57:20PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
>>> I'm excited by this series, thanks for making it.
>>>
>>> The pin accounting has been a long standing problem and cgroups will
>>> really help!
>>
>> Indeed. I'm curious how GUP-fast, pinning the same page multiple times, and
>> pinning subpages of larger folios are handled :)
> 
> The same as today. The pinning is done based on the result from GUP,
> and we charge every returned struct page.
> 
> So duplicates are counted multiple times, folios are ignored.
> 
> Removing duplicate charges would be costly, it would require storage
> to keep track of how many times individual pages have been charged to
> each cgroup (eg an xarray indexed by PFN of integers in each cgroup).
> 
> It doesn't seem worth the cost, IMHO.
> 
> We've made alot of investment now with iommufd to remove the most
> annoying sources of duplicated pins so it is much less of a problem in
> the qemu context at least.

Wasn't there the discussion regarding using vfio+io_uring+rdma+$whatever 
on a VM and requiring multiple times the VM size as memlock limit? Would 
it be the same now, just that we need multiple times the pin limit?

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb