On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Roland Dreier wrote:
> Christoph, your argument would be a lot more convincing if you stopped
> repeating this nonsense. Sure, in a strict sense, it might be true
Well this is regarding tracking of pages that need to stay resident and
since the kernel does the pinning throug
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> There is no way that user space can initiate a page pin right now. Perf is
> pinning the page from the kernel. Similarly the IB subsystem pins memory
> meeded for device I/O.
Christoph, your argument would be a lot more convincing if you
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Peter clearly pointed it out that in the perf case it's user-space that
> initiates the pinned memory mapping which is resource-controlled via
> RLIMIT_MEMLOCK - and this was implemented that way before your commit
> broke the code.
There is no way that u
* Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > They did no such thing; being one of those who wrote such code. I
> > expressly used RLIMIT_MEMLOCK for its the one limit userspace has to
> > limit pages that are exempt from paging.
>
> Dont remember reviewing that
* Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Let's try to get this wrapped up?
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:43:51 +0200 Peter Zijlstra
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Patch bc3e53f682 ("mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages")
> > > broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
>
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> They did no such thing; being one of those who wrote such code. I
> expressly used RLIMIT_MEMLOCK for its the one limit userspace has to
> limit pages that are exempt from paging.
Dont remember reviewing that. Assumptions were wrong in that patch then.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Let's try to get this wrapped up?
>
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:43:51 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> >
> > Patch bc3e53f682 ("mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages")
> > broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
>
> I rather like what bc3e53f682 did, actually.
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 02:52:05PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > However you twist this; your patch leaves an inconsistent mess. If you
> > really think they're two different things then you should have
> > introduced a second RLIMIT_MEMPIN to go
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 02:06:32PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Let's try to get this wrapped up?
>
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:43:51 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> >
> > Patch bc3e53f682 ("mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages")
> > broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
>
> I rather like what bc3e53
Let's try to get this wrapped up?
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:43:51 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Patch bc3e53f682 ("mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages")
> broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
I rather like what bc3e53f682 did, actually. RLIMIT_MEMLOCK limits the
amount of memory you can mlock().
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> However you twist this; your patch leaves an inconsistent mess. If you
> really think they're two different things then you should have
> introduced a second RLIMIT_MEMPIN to go along with your counter.
Well continuing to repeat myself: I worked based o
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 06:46:50PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Since RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is very clearly a limit on the amount of pages the
> > process can 'lock' into memory it should very much include pinned pages
> > as well as mlock()ed pages. N
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Since RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is very clearly a limit on the amount of pages the
> process can 'lock' into memory it should very much include pinned pages
> as well as mlock()ed pages. Neither can be paged.
So we we thought that this is the sum of the pages that
Patch bc3e53f682 ("mm: distinguish between mlocked and pinned pages")
broke RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
Before that patch: mm_struct::locked_vm < RLIMIT_MEMLOCK; after that
patch we have: mm_struct::locked_vm < RLIMIT_MEMLOCK &&
mm_struct::pinned_vm < RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.
The patch doesn't mention RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
14 matches
Mail list logo
