Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7F0C64EC7 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 17:29:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234122AbjBUR3Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2023 12:29:25 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45738 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233849AbjBUR3V (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2023 12:29:21 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D07E40C8; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:29:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id u10so5823281pjc.5; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:29:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=CtEZ/7pnoyH06jUq+fgMxtlXiNC1jdAF93zVpBlKNvs=; b=mwAbh7M9wX3g1OzbvYABaL+kfK7rqeaqAMqPsEu9mPBCxmgk1N5zZECvq0Ss/MlzOD ROLyIRXLTZkTovztN4E21qQcT7ddYAkDbnNUlyw53talFh762BRNcyOyVpEDMg8g3B9u jykabVaGMXGLfiUat5SxJsNSFyraLPtDLRf+ITb5xxLKY4PASUCZnIOs3hjg1YPRk5Lt 0kEytg6sLdm3KQTD0RbRdQ0Zm2BEY5TX6QXhIGu5FQTJpNtpNF2huHAdKOHpLei2igGJ C3rfRljyrxSRtoCGlF1kUWXRKEvfveiSGOD1SFYBImSqr3JJOlxH2edGQ7qtWRbXCZIO FyZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CtEZ/7pnoyH06jUq+fgMxtlXiNC1jdAF93zVpBlKNvs=; b=JHsewGg5+90PmRhT7IAqOo3tLyHmXj2pI5/BcyMEQjNfbkbOIkuijqV6AcCxRDAFTq kWttT21cyASWOMUa1dh/BlUNA5qFNCRdXsn5crw2zR6CEaOVMKHvUXgpabGZcjeO1/2A U1qFC00KJQybyYvnK2WJixqdv1dO+etdFjjsPirQZhz8ehab6IUje1wMLEwqsPwXrOdg IZP3FNCPa0FAlSBpFw7K0TEf+MxfuF4hkzSxAvnixt//p8OPZAooNObMNBhcdNwMo0+h Rh9IInghjRPQXpQbJTRC3gEw2R32yJPpxwZ8C+ze6lZTNkLYiMCh70KLUxSX6Ge/dYBd gPjw== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKViaEv5enUGtXDJtHyN2biPnxMHq/R2rUkWc8AqPBt7BPKmzq6N pFrmkGW1yKwvYogzvsABx04= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8chT3xCP2Az0tuzlOPUZgJny1oGBAMs3MdDI/jVnEGjYfFMfe1WD2aoForZ9SO3Ibtf5to4Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:1610:b0:c7:1da3:e3a with SMTP id l16-20020a056a20161000b000c71da30e3amr3842395pzj.16.1677000560373; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:29:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (2603-800c-1a02-1bae-a7fa-157f-969a-4cde.res6.spectrum.com. [2603:800c:1a02:1bae:a7fa:157f:969a:4cde]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9-20020a631d09000000b004e63aa44474sm3286678pgd.33.2023.02.21.09.29.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:29:19 -0800 (PST) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 07:29:18 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Michal Hocko , Yosry Ahmed , Alistair Popple , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jhubbard@nvidia.com, tjmercier@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, surenb@google.com, mkoutny@suse.com, daniel@ffwll.ch, "Daniel P . Berrange" , Alex Williamson , Zefan Li , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/19] mm: Introduce a cgroup for pinned memory Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 01:25:59PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 06:51:48AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > > cgroup, right? It makes little sense to me to separate the owner of the > > memory page and the pinner of it. They should be one and the same. > > The owner and pinner are not always the same entity or we could just > use the page's cgroup. Yeah, so, what I'm trying to say is that that might be the source of the problem. Is the current page ownership attribution correct given that the fd for whatever reason is determining the pinning ownership or should the page ownership be attributed the same way too? If they indeed need to differ, that probably would need pretty strong justifications. Thanks. -- tejun