On Mon 08-02-21 22:38:03, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Am 08.02.2021 um 22:13 schrieb Mike Rapoport <rppt(a)kernel.org>:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:27:18AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 08.02.21 09:49, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> Some questions (and request to document the answers) as we now allow to have
>> unmovable allocations all over the place and I don't see a single comment
>> regarding that in the cover letter:
>> 1. How will the issue of plenty of unmovable allocations for user space be
>> tackled in the future?
>> 2. How has this issue been documented? E.g., interaction with ZONE_MOVABLE
>> and CMA, alloc_conig_range()/alloc_contig_pages?.
> Secretmem sets the mappings gfp mask to GFP_HIGHUSER, so it does not
> allocate movable pages at the first place.
That is not the point. Secretmem cannot go on CMA / ZONE_MOVABLE
memory and behaves like long-term pinnings in that sense. This is a
real issue when using a lot of sectremem.
A lot of unevictable memory is a concern regardless of CMA/ZONE_MOVABLE.
As I've said it is quite easy to land at the similar situation even with
tmpfs/MAP_ANON|MAP_SHARED on swapless system. Neither of the two is
really uncommon. It would be even worse that those would be allowed to
consume both CMA/ZONE_MOVABLE.
One has to be very careful when relying on CMA or movable zones. This is
definitely worth a comment in the kernel command line parameter
documentation. But this is not a new problem.