From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 00CBCC433F5 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 21:56:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237299AbhKVV7i (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:59:38 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]:56836 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237016AbhKVV7g (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:59:36 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1637618188; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=W5DAe1gdf6Kwi2vx+MSMPnRhHLBKz9idjNkHP8MSJ3s=; b=eJzlQTUIrW2h9w5GZAjEgU2F0JskkVAhAvBx6IdSkV0Md978KsxQK31fJ8b3Wl2GcYN3tu NTee58HU/CedzjYegLUr8IJ3BqSM0A8RiJOk/pMotCENDY1sZEQWjIlQ6X6DF+9iJB+Jh0 nJRQRf3l4pgdB6Ig0vv/T/4An95nTQ0= Received: from mail-wm1-f71.google.com (mail-wm1-f71.google.com [209.85.128.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-53-EjdRclQKO4qt-e5Aky5qxQ-1; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:56:27 -0500 X-MC-Unique: EjdRclQKO4qt-e5Aky5qxQ-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f71.google.com with SMTP id r129-20020a1c4487000000b00333629ed22dso214283wma.6 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 13:56:27 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent :content-language:to:cc:references:from:organization:subject :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=W5DAe1gdf6Kwi2vx+MSMPnRhHLBKz9idjNkHP8MSJ3s=; b=l2XV4GBrsXp/C+cJX7/nuWeLI4KMMgRGnG+Jnhb8I8ybf23TODRZEUXlhHW1qfCFoS fhuVtlD+GEKfWMI2fSwuTT/oPV6SlFXxsp5iKSDRrSK7RaNxFoXkylOIVJ8PrxBeWP7W qprK/23PCnu7fMg8098M0iu0kfQKtt9vqZs7kq2Ubw06ivEiEYQpMYPY/7DO/DYTFT6L SvETAjZQin1yO7lSmQFB9TLQXdDmQi/cgquslyohXc8yThIDc/GykHYlNahtpmOVHQT8 gn6yfaHpofvNu8BCx8ufzHPslO8EMyOjuij0lZ98dSQ1X5b+XQFvRYK1s9pvGCsP0z3y xRDg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Uy1/FDkyFta56hcANh8yEbreD4wTf/rJ2i1YUUhMbucUYQ1sf rOlsH/3j+GaP4YqfGfsaLft4btzokUGyFpR0uFW9DNdjePiTV8WybRHUwnhrpvFYHC5zWULD/Vf CYViP9qXTj9bkfYW39SY= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:68ce:: with SMTP id p14mr708354wrw.116.1637618186173; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 13:56:26 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxKXRB9yEqdwVRzeunUOwgploM8hm0Lx19ZeHTw7CQCkN1pDTfPBIbiiZcU9xqPM8Lk/YdiAw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:68ce:: with SMTP id p14mr708315wrw.116.1637618185919; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 13:56:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.3.132] (p5b0c667b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [91.12.102.123]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s8sm10545506wra.9.2021.11.22.13.56.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Nov 2021 13:56:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 22:56:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Jens Axboe , Andrew Dona-Couch , Andrew Morton , Drew DeVault Cc: Ammar Faizi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, io_uring Mailing List , Pavel Begunkov , linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20211028080813.15966-1-sir@cmpwn.com> <593aea3b-e4a4-65ce-0eda-cb3885ff81cd@gnuweeb.org> <20211115203530.62ff33fdae14927b48ef6e5f@linux-foundation.org> <20211116114727.601021d0763be1f1efe2a6f9@linux-foundation.org> <20211116133750.0f625f73a1e4843daf13b8f7@linux-foundation.org> <8f219a64-a39f-45f0-a7ad-708a33888a3b@www.fastmail.com> <333cb52b-5b02-648e-af7a-090e23261801@redhat.com> <5f998bb7-7b5d-9253-2337-b1d9ea59c796@redhat.com> <3adc55d3-f383-efa9-7319-740fc6ab5d7a@kernel.dk> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase default MLOCK_LIMIT to 8 MiB In-Reply-To: <3adc55d3-f383-efa9-7319-740fc6ab5d7a@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On 22.11.21 21:44, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 11/22/21 1:08 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 22.11.21 20:53, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 11/22/21 11:26 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> On 22.11.21 18:55, Andrew Dona-Couch wrote: >>>>> Forgive me for jumping in to an already overburdened thread. But can >>>>> someone pushing back on this clearly explain the issue with applying >>>>> this patch? >>>> >>>> It will allow unprivileged users to easily and even "accidentally" >>>> allocate more unmovable memory than it should in some environments. Such >>>> limits exist for a reason. And there are ways for admins/distros to >>>> tweak these limits if they know what they are doing. >>> >>> But that's entirely the point, the cases where this change is needed are >>> already screwed by a distro and the user is the administrator. This is >>> _exactly_ the case where things should just work out of the box. If >>> you're managing farms of servers, yeah you have competent administration >>> and you can be expected to tweak settings to get the best experience and >>> performance, but the kernel should provide a sane default. 64K isn't a >>> sane default. >> >> 0.1% of RAM isn't either. > > No default is perfect, byt 0.1% will solve 99% of the problem. And most > likely solve 100% of the problems for the important case, which is where > you want things to Just Work on your distro without doing any > administration. If you're aiming for perfection, it doesn't exist. ... and my Fedora is already at 16 MiB *sigh*. And I'm not aiming for perfection, I'm aiming for as little FOLL_LONGTERM users as possible ;) > >>>> This is not a step into the right direction. This is all just trying to >>>> hide the fact that we're exposing FOLL_LONGTERM usage to random >>>> unprivileged users. >>>> >>>> Maybe we could instead try getting rid of FOLL_LONGTERM usage and the >>>> memlock limit in io_uring altogether, for example, by using mmu >>>> notifiers. But I'm no expert on the io_uring code. >>> >>> You can't use mmu notifiers without impacting the fast path. This isn't >>> just about io_uring, there are other users of memlock right now (like >>> bpf) which just makes it even worse. >> >> 1) Do we have a performance evaluation? Did someone try and come up with >> a conclusion how bad it would be? > > I honestly don't remember the details, I took a look at it about a year > ago due to some unrelated reasons. These days it just pertains to > registered buffers, so it's less of an issue than back then when it > dealt with the rings as well. Hence might be feasible, I'm certainly not > against anyone looking into it. Easy enough to review and test for > performance concerns. That at least sounds promising. > >> 2) Could be provide a mmu variant to ordinary users that's just good >> enough but maybe not as fast as what we have today? And limit >> FOLL_LONGTERM to special, privileged users? > > If it's not as fast, then it's most likely not good enough though... There is always a compromise of course. See, FOLL_LONGTERM is *the worst* kind of memory allocation thingy you could possible do to your MM subsystem. It's absolutely the worst thing you can do to swap and compaction. I really don't want random feature X to be next and say "well, io_uring uses it, so I can just use it for max performance and we'll adjust the memlock limit, who cares!". > >> 3) Just because there are other memlock users is not an excuse. For >> example, VFIO/VDPA have to use it for a reason, because there is no way >> not do use FOLL_LONGTERM. > > It's not an excuse, the statement merely means that the problem is > _worse_ as there are other memlock users. Yes, and it will keep getting worse every time we introduce more FOLL_LONGTERM users that really shouldn't be FOLL_LONGTERM users unless really required. Again, VFIO/VDPA/RDMA are prime examples, because the HW forces us to do it. And these are privileged features either way. > >>> >>> We should just make this 0.1% of RAM (min(0.1% ram, 64KB)) or something >>> like what was suggested, if that will help move things forward. IMHO the >>> 32MB machine is mostly a theoretical case, but whatever . >> >> 1) I'm deeply concerned about large ZONE_MOVABLE and MIGRATE_CMA ranges >> where FOLL_LONGTERM cannot be used, as that memory is not available. >> >> 2) With 0.1% RAM it's sufficient to start 1000 processes to break any >> system completely and deeply mess up the MM. Oh my. > > We're talking per-user limits here. But if you want to talk hyperbole, > then 64K multiplied by some other random number will also allow > everything to be pinned, potentially. > Right, it's per-user. 0.1% per user FOLL_LONGTERM locked into memory in the worst case. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb