From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751606AbeA3LCa (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:02:30 -0500 Received: from mail.netline.ch ([148.251.143.178]:43416 "EHLO netline-mail3.netline.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751373AbeA3LC3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:02:29 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC] Per file OOM badness To: =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org References: <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> <381a868c-78fd-d0d1-029e-a2cf4ab06d37@gmail.com> <20180130093145.GE25930@phenom.ffwll.local> <3db43c1a-59b8-af86-2b87-c783c629f512@daenzer.net> <3026d8c5-9313-cb8b-91ef-09c02baf27db@amd.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michel_D=c3=a4nzer?= Message-ID: <445628d3-677c-a9f8-171f-7d74a603c61d@daenzer.net> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:02:26 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3026d8c5-9313-cb8b-91ef-09c02baf27db@amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-CA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018-01-30 11:40 AM, Christian König wrote: > Am 30.01.2018 um 10:43 schrieb Michel Dänzer: >> [SNIP] >>> Would it be ok to hang onto potentially arbitrary mmget references >>> essentially forever? If that's ok I think we can do your process based >>> account (minus a few minor inaccuracies for shared stuff perhaps, but no >>> one cares about that). >> Honestly, I think you and Christian are overthinking this. Let's try >> charging the memory to every process which shares a buffer, and go from >> there. > > My problem is that this needs to be bullet prove. > > For example imagine an application which allocates a lot of BOs, then > calls fork() and let the parent process die. The file descriptor lives > on in the child process, but the memory is not accounted against the child. What exactly are you referring to by "the file descriptor" here? What happens to BO handles in general in this case? If both parent and child process keep the same handle for the same BO, one of them destroying the handle will result in the other one not being able to use it anymore either, won't it? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer