[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <60e18da8-4d6e-dec9-7aef-ff003605d513@daenzer.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:29:10 +0100
From: Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Christian.Koenig@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Per file OOM badness
On 2018-01-24 12:50 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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?
How about the other way around: what APIs can we use to charge /
"uncharge" memory to a process? If we have those, we can experiment with
different places to call them.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists