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:   Tue, 14 Sep 2021 20:15:30 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Peter Oskolkov <posk@google.com>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Peter Oskolkov <posk@posk.io>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@google.com>,
        Thierry Delisle <tdelisle@uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4 v0.5] sched/umcg: RFC: add userspace atomic helpers
Message-ID: <YUDmwsf8Lf7HQ3+s@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210908184905.163787-1-posk@google.com>
 <20210908184905.163787-3-posk@google.com>
 <CAG48ez2LyLNkH4iVbeKJUuH=oh57WECkKYCW+G9mtheoh7Fsvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPNVh5eaW7r_Nv-wHEyxQiFkXngmONwPyZSFvtTEhk3TxJ+iMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YUBYJLCYpy3yJO5F@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAPNVh5chP3Zz+ww8WLb9bUYNikW-1PyOV=3==BM-92BgogaB3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <YUDkR8YtekMkuaBH@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YUDkR8YtekMkuaBH@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 08:04:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 09:29:00AM -0700, Peter Oskolkov wrote:
> > In the version of the patchset that I'm preparing to send I've decided
> > to punt on the issue and just ask the userspace to deal with locking
> > the memory as it sees fit: mlock() is available and as far as I can
> 
> Sadly mlock() does not imply no faults. Someone had a too literal
> reading of the POSIX-RT spec (of which mlock is part) and figured that
> all that was required was to keep the page in memory, not avoid faults.
> 
> Linux has had this bahviour for ages, PREEMPT_RT has tried to change
> this, but so far to no avail. At some point sys_mpin() was proposed to
> meet the original POSIX-RT intent, but afaict that never actually
> happened.
> 
> In short, mlock() does not avoid minor faults, or even migration faults,
> which can take a fair while to resolve.

Also, even if it did, that would still not be acceptible because
userspace could fail to call mlock() at which point mis-behaving
userspace can deadlock the kernel, which is a no-no.