Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:16:29 -0700
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc:     Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz,
        cl@linux.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        alex.williamson@redhat.com, paulus@ozlabs.org,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, hao.wu@intel.com,
        atull@kernel.org, mdf@kernel.org, aik@ozlabs.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] use pinned_vm instead of locked_vm to account pinned
 pages
Message-ID: <20190214221629.GD1739@ziepe.ca>
References: <20190211224437.25267-1-daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
 <20190211225447.GN24692@ziepe.ca>
 <20190214015314.GB1151@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190214060006.GE24692@ziepe.ca>
 <20190214193352.GA7512@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190214201231.GC1739@ziepe.ca>
 <20190214214650.GB7512@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190214214650.GB7512@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 01:46:51PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:

> > > > Really unclear how to fix this. The pinned/locked split with two
> > > > buckets may be the right way.
> > > 
> > > Are you suggesting that we have 2 user limits?
> > 
> > This is what RDMA has done since CL's patch.
> 
> I don't understand?  What is the other _user_ limit (other than
> RLIMIT_MEMLOCK)?

With todays implementation RLIMIT_MEMLOCK covers two user limits,
total number of pinned pages and total number of mlocked pages. The
two are different buckets and not summed.

Jason