On 09.02.21 14:25, Michal Hocko wrote:

On Tue 09-02-21 11:23:35, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]

quoted

I am constantly trying to fight for making more stuff MOVABLE instead of
going into the other direction (e.g., because it's easier to implement,
which feels like the wrong direction).

Maybe I am the only person that really cares about ZONE_MOVABLE these days
:) I can't stop such new stuff from popping up, so at least I want it to be
documented.

MOVABLE zone is certainly an important thing to keep working. And there
is still quite a lot of work on the way. But as I've said this is more
of a outlier than a norm. On the other hand movable zone is kinda hard
requirement for a lot of application and it is to be expected that
many features will be less than 100% compatible.  Some usecases even
impossible. That's why I am arguing that we should have a central
document where the movable zone is documented with all the potential
problems we have encountered over time and explicitly state which
features are fully/partially incompatible.

I'll send a mail during the next weeks to gather current restrictions to 
document them (and include my brain dump). We might see more excessive 
use of ZONE_MOVABLE in the future and as history told us, of CMA as 
well. We really should start documenting/caring.

@Mike, it would be sufficient for me if one of your patches at least 
mention the situation in the description like

"Please note that secretmem currently behaves much more like long-term 
GUP instead of mlocked memory; secretmem is unmovable memory directly 
consumed/controlled by user space. secretmem cannot be placed onto 
ZONE_MOVABLE/CMA.

As long as there is no excessive use of secretmem (e.g., maximum of 16 
MiB for selected processes) in combination with ZONE_MOVABLE/CMA, this 
is barely a real issue. However, it is something to keep in mind when a 
significant amount of system RAM might be used for secretmem. In the 
future, we might support migration of secretmem and make it look much 
more like mlocked memory instead."

Just a suggestion.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb