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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+CK2bBffHBxjmb9jmSKacm0fJMinyt3Nhk8Nx6iudcQSj80_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201123090129.GD27488@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CA+CK2bCD8_x5cBUOksAzat_O4G8-PoLp378zN1mxKMcmyV8dAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201123171502.GX244516@ziepe.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20201123171502.GX244516@ziepe.ca>
From:   Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:54:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+CK2bDx1Q5QWw=hXMs=OWwCSVrFu-xizY8YOR_MqLsvMAZm0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pinning ZONE_MOVABLE pages
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:15 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:06:21AM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
>
> > What I mean here is allowing users to guarantee that the page's PA is
> > going to stay the same. Sort of a stronger mlock. Mlock only
> > guarantees that the page is not swapped, but something like
>
> You've just described get/pin_user_pages(), that is exactly what it is
> for.

You are right. No need for the madvise() flag at all. (The slight
difference of being able to mark memory pinned prior to touching is
really insignificant).

>
> I agree with the other emails, ZONE_MOVABLE needs to be reconciled
> with FOLL_LONGTERM - most likely by preventing ZONE_MOVABLE pages from
> being returned. This will need migration like CMA does and the point
> about faulting is only an optimization to prevent fault then immediate
> migration.

That is right, as the first step we could just do fault and immediate
migration, which is silly, but still better than what we have now.

>
> Jason