[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZDarxo2Q4cgFHdbh@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:01:58 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...sung.com>
Cc: "jstultz@...gle.com" <jstultz@...gle.com>,
"tjmercier@...gle.com" <tjmercier@...gle.com>,
"sumit.semwal@...aro.org" <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
"daniel.vetter@...ll.ch" <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"jaewon31.kim@...il.com" <jaewon31.kim@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dma-buf/heaps: system_heap: avoid too much allocation
On Wed 12-04-23 21:35:32, Jaewon Kim wrote:
> >On Wed 12-04-23 20:37:59, Jaewon Kim wrote:
> >> Limiting dmabuf memory may be required. But I think there
> >> is no nice and reasonable way so far.
> >
> >If that is really the way then the patch doesn't really add a big
> >benefit. It doesn't really prevent OOMs (or panics due to OOM) as the
> >allocator still allows to consume arbitrary amount of memory. The
> >provided check is not able to tell between buggy and legit calls.
> >--
> >Michal Hocko
> >SUSE Labs
>
> Yes it could be. Though the buggy call is blocked by totalram_pages check,
It seems our definitions of buggy differ here. I do not see much
difference between totalram_pages +- PAGE_SIZE (or any epsilon for that
matter). Both would put the system down to its knees without a way out
other than panic.
> mm may suffer memory shortage due to the huge memory consumption through
> dma-buf system heap. We just hope Android LMKD or oomk kills the memory
> hoggers prior to oom panic.
You seem to be missing an important point. If the global OOM killer is
not able to find a victim the LMKD or oomk are highly unlikely as well
(unless they ignore OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN).
> IMO if possible mm should be able to track the dma-buf size as stat in
> mm_rss_stat for each process.
I do remember some proposals from the past and IIRC the main problem was
how to attribute those buffers to the actual owner.
I believe I have give you some arguments to consider. The rest is up to
you. As I've said I do not have any stakes in dmabuf. The patch itself
is not actively harmful, it is just adding an illusion of a fix while it
doesn't give much.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists