Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:09:00 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Maya B . Gokhale" <gokhale2@llnl.gov>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Marty Mcfadden <mcfadden8@llnl.gov>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Trial do_wp_page() simplification
Message-ID: <20200917220900.GO8409@ziepe.ca>
References: <20200916174804.GC8409@ziepe.ca>
 <20200916184619.GB40154@xz-x1>
 <20200917112538.GD8409@ziepe.ca>
 <20200917181411.GA133226@xz-x1>
 <CAHk-=wgMVPAhD7C24ipe03+MScgp6F=zMS-roOznvxJ+hOGfSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200917190332.GB133226@xz-x1>
 <CAHk-=wgw3GNyF_6euymOFxM62Y3B=C=f2iUJn8Py-u5YELJ5JA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200917200638.GM8409@ziepe.ca>
 <CAHk-=wh+qz0oOjyiQFXR_73RYSDUmJwHC8xd=KG0RzELnbS5OA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200917214059.GA162800@xz-x1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200917214059.GA162800@xz-x1>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 05:40:59PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:35:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > For that to happen, we'd need to have the vma flag so that we wouldn't
> > have any worry about non-pinners, but as you suggested, I think even
> > just a mm-wide counter - or flag - to deal with the fast-bup case is
> > likely perfectly sufficient.
> 
> Would mm_struct.pinned_vm suffice?

I think that could be a good long term goal

IIRC last time we dug into the locked_vm vs pinned_vm mess it didn't
get fixed. There is a mix of both kinds, as you saw, and some
resistance I don't clearly remember to changing it.

My advice for this -rc fix is to go with a single bit in the mm_struct
set on any call to pin_user_pages*

Then only users using pin_user_pages and forking are the only ones who
would ever do extra COW on fork. I think that is OK for -rc, this
workload should be rare due to the various historical issues. Anyhow,
a slow down regression is better than a it is broken regression.

This can be improved into a counter later. Due to the pinned_vm
accounting all call sites should have the mm_struct at unpin, but I
have a feeling it will take a alot of driver patches to sort it all
out.

Jason