Message-ID: <8939a03e-8204-940b-dd69-be28f75a2492@daenzer.net>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jan 2018 11:02:42 +0100
From:   Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>
To:     christian.koenig@....com, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
Cc:     amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Per file OOM badness

On 2018-01-19 10:58 AM, Christian König wrote:
> Am 19.01.2018 um 10:32 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
>> On 2018-01-19 09:39 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 19.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Michal Hocko:
>>>> On Thu 18-01-18 12:01:32, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>>>> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu 18-01-18 18:00:06, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu 18-01-18 11:47:48, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi, this series is a revised version of an RFC sent by Christian
>>>>>>>> König
>>>>>>>> a few years ago. The original RFC can be found at
>>>>>>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-September/089778.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the same idea and I've just adressed his concern from the
>>>>>>>> original RFC
>>>>>>>> and switched to a callback into file_ops instead of a new member
>>>>>>>> in struct file.
>>>>>>> Please add the full description to the cover letter and do not make
>>>>>>> people hunt links.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is the origin cover letter text
>>>>>>> : I'm currently working on the issue that when device drivers
>>>>>>> allocate memory on
>>>>>>> : behalf of an application the OOM killer usually doesn't knew
>>>>>>> about that unless
>>>>>>> : the application also get this memory mapped into their address
>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> : This is especially annoying for graphics drivers where a lot of
>>>>>>> the VRAM
>>>>>>> : usually isn't CPU accessible and so doesn't make sense to map
>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>> : address space of the process using it.
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> : The problem now is that when an application starts to use a lot
>>>>>>> of VRAM those
>>>>>>> : buffers objects sooner or later get swapped out to system memory,
>>>>>>> but when we
>>>>>>> : now run into an out of memory situation the OOM killer obviously
>>>>>>> doesn't knew
>>>>>>> : anything about that memory and so usually kills the wrong process.
>>>>>> OK, but how do you attribute that memory to a particular OOM killable
>>>>>> entity? And how do you actually enforce that those resources get
>>>>>> freed
>>>>>> on the oom killer action?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> : The following set of patches tries to address this problem by
>>>>>>> introducing a per
>>>>>>> : file OOM badness score, which device drivers can use to give the
>>>>>>> OOM killer a
>>>>>>> : hint how many resources are bound to a file descriptor so that it
>>>>>>> can make
>>>>>>> : better decisions which process to kill.
>>>>>> But files are not killable, they can be shared... In other words this
>>>>>> doesn't help the oom killer to make an educated guess at all.
>>>>> Maybe some more context would help the discussion?
>>>>>
>>>>> The struct file in patch 3 is the DRM fd.  That's effectively "my
>>>>> process's interface to talking to the GPU" not "a single GPU
>>>>> resource".
>>>>> Once that file is closed, all of the process's private, idle GPU
>>>>> buffers
>>>>> will be immediately freed (this will be most of their allocations),
>>>>> and
>>>>> some will be freed once the GPU completes some work (this will be most
>>>>> of the rest of their allocations).
>>>>>
>>>>> Some GEM BOs won't be freed just by closing the fd, if they've been
>>>>> shared between processes.  Those are usually about 8-24MB total in a
>>>>> process, rather than the GBs that modern apps use (or that our
>>>>> testcases
>>>>> like to allocate and thus trigger oomkilling of the test harness
>>>>> instead
>>>>> of the offending testcase...)
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if we just had the private+idle buffers being accounted in OOM
>>>>> badness, that would be a huge step forward in system reliability.
>>>> OK, in that case I would propose a different approach. We already
>>>> have rss_stat. So why do not we simply add a new counter there
>>>> MM_KERNELPAGES and consider those in oom_badness? The rule would be
>>>> that such a memory is bound to the process life time. I guess we will
>>>> find more users for this later.
>>> I already tried that and the problem with that approach is that some
>>> buffers are not created by the application which actually uses them.
>>>
>>> For example X/Wayland is creating and handing out render buffers to
>>> application which want to use OpenGL.
>>>
>>> So the result is when you always account the application who created the
>>> buffer the OOM killer will certainly reap X/Wayland first. And that is
>>> exactly what we want to avoid here.
>> FWIW, what you describe is true with DRI2, but not with DRI3 or Wayland
>> anymore. With DRI3 and Wayland, buffers are allocated by the clients and
>> then shared with the X / Wayland server.
> 
> Good point, when I initially looked at that problem DRI3 wasn't widely
> used yet.
> 
>> Also, in all cases, the amount of memory allocated for buffers shared
>> between DRI/Wayland clients and the server should be relatively small
>> compared to the amount of memory allocated for buffers used only locally
>> in the client, particularly for clients which create significant memory
>> pressure.
> 
> That is unfortunately only partially true. When you have a single
> runaway application which tries to allocate everything it would indeed
> work as you described.
> 
> But when I tested this a few years ago with X based desktop the
> applications which actually used most of the memory where Firefox and
> Thunderbird. Unfortunately they never got accounted for that.
> 
> Now, on my current Wayland based desktop it actually doesn't look much
> better. Taking a look at radeon_gem_info/amdgpu_gem_info the majority of
> all memory was allocated either by gnome-shell or Xwayland.

My guess would be this is due to pixmaps, which allow X clients to cause
the X server to allocate essentially unlimited amounts of memory. It's a
separate issue, which would require a different solution than what we're
discussing in this thread. Maybe something that would allow the X server
to tell the kernel that some of the memory it allocates is for the
client process.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer               |               http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer

Powered by blists - more mailing lists