linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] dma-buf: Add DmaBufTotal counter in meminfo

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5efa2b11-850b-ad89-b518-b776247748a4@sony.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:02:57 +0000
From:   <Peter.Enderborg@...y.com>
To:     <mhocko@...e.com>, <christian.koenig@....com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        <guro@...com>, <shakeelb@...gle.com>, <neilb@...e.de>,
        <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, <rppt@...nel.org>,
        <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>, <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] dma-buf: Add DmaBufTotal counter in meminfo


>> But that isn't really system memory at all, it's just allocated device
>> memory.
> OK, that was not really clear to me. So this is not really accounted to
> MemTotal? If that is really the case then reporting it into the oom
> report is completely pointless and I am not even sure /proc/meminfo is
> the right interface either. It would just add more confusion I am
> afraid.
>  

Why is it confusing? Documentation is quite clear:

"Provides information about distribution and utilization of memory. This
varies by architecture and compile options."

A topology with VRAM fits very well on that. The point is to have an
overview.


>>> See where I am heading?
>> Yeah, totally. Thanks for pointing this out.
>>
>> Suggestions how to handle that?
> As I've pointed out in previous reply we do have an API to account per
> node memory but now that you have brought up that this is not something
> we account as a regular memory then this doesn't really fit into that
> model. But maybe I am just confused.