From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933482AbeAXMLN (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 07:11:13 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:42345 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933300AbeAXMLM (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 07:11:12 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226sb72xWCjl2c+dUD4AvUpq06jRyDsgvw85LHeprSK7Kvb/Am9plDIjWIaswURxj2kNkFCQCQ== Reply-To: christian.koenig@amd.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Per file OOM badness To: Michal Hocko , =?UTF-8?Q?Michel_D=c3=a4nzer?= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Christian.Koenig@amd.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Roman Gushchin References: <1516294072-17841-1-git-send-email-andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com> <20180118170006.GG6584@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180123152659.GA21817@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> <20180123153631.GR1526@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180124092847.GI1526@dhcp22.suse.cz> <583f328e-ff46-c6a4-8548-064259995766@daenzer.net> <20180124110141.GA28465@dhcp22.suse.cz> <36b49523-792d-45f9-8617-32b6d9d77418@daenzer.net> <20180124115059.GC28465@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= Message-ID: <381a868c-78fd-d0d1-029e-a2cf4ab06d37@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:11:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180124115059.GC28465@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 24.01.2018 um 12:50 schrieb Michal Hocko: > On Wed 24-01-18 12:23:10, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> On 2018-01-24 12:01 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Wed 24-01-18 11:27:15, Michel Dänzer wrote: > [...] >>>> 2. If the OOM killer kills a process which is sharing BOs with another >>>> process, this should result in the other process dropping its references >>>> to the BOs as well, at which point the memory is released. >>> OK. How exactly are those BOs mapped to the userspace? >> I'm not sure what you're asking. Userspace mostly uses a GEM handle to >> refer to a BO. There can also be userspace CPU mappings of the BO's >> memory, but userspace doesn't need CPU mappings for all BOs and only >> creates them as needed. > OK, I guess you have to bear with me some more. This whole stack is a > complete uknonwn. I am mostly after finding a boundary where you can > charge the allocated memory to the process so that the oom killer can > consider it. Is there anything like that? Except for the proposed file > handle hack? Not that I knew of. As I said before we need some kind of callback that a process now starts to use a file descriptor, but without anything from that file descriptor mapped into the address space. Regards, Christian.