Received: by 10.223.176.46 with SMTP id f43csp4385472wra; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 08:40:53 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227qDaHiWMK3C4auN1NE86TF9bJNgw7lC+RfB5Q49lBL3vXkd9gPbnDDt5MWeLhsBI8VlGFz X-Received: by 10.107.137.157 with SMTP id t29mr4308110ioi.230.1516725653808; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 08:40:53 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1516725653; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=HNw/HPHBKTfkrbz1p2GID1UuwQLDrELwbd6ydweqqa4sxtAxELhaWsJC2PHubrP7yB d3Ljyhly7goCofPv0LptZyBhjxloKgATkaviCquXnllZXQnXK/Moo38QR7/AJXPSmO4t cc0nfVVc/lxZcLUuMawXO3O05gIy96dZJgMLYsxv39DEP0ba5c7OWSlTB1E3vbbqgb2b +QaalPDI1tsmySgb8CPLS2LiAG5lpIurDA48h9XrrG1YqavZ/OA2lYIctza/lR2bUPUD dZk529tP3AHrGiTh4EyimxDc6ev9JAk+xyhljLgoOK3sGxFmNNmemDYQA6CFJ75eUcnj ckgg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject:arc-authentication-results; bh=jqS4Vk815UIaq4lMEywDvhXj8I5zjythHzB9VU+zOa8=; b=q1bL9WIeX2IjRbnUDY1YrOlSYeAMVJ12mM9qhlEipzySwxmjvU72YBvNnheq6BVVTE AqFfkdVcM/WqzJVwqJHcTlvNxTc7iXSueLcjksh0MvSC5KOWdpPgaTpOasNSe3BvLVp2 ypjbtOmRg73o/yXMhaJQWUDvGOwcen3zc/rq4NIMWNwA3Ew/mA6UjqiZvKgp9s7AkGvK 1PSib9+wTZ3MQdSVL+Bn5QaZEDgpw+Lvr3g/lk+adMGMzk9OUMqeawFfZ5xDKw2Vm+9M 0XbdiKBXDbXWy7jtsCfV2sN+jzDav6H3hXpPZfmsuCmBoR7/x4V7/U9/1OmJgeO9oJ5H Lq4g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l42si15105872ioi.324.2018.01.23.08.40.40; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 08:40:53 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751412AbeAWQjY (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:39:24 -0500 Received: from mail.netline.ch ([148.251.143.178]:35331 "EHLO netline-mail3.netline.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751243AbeAWQjX (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:39:23 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netline-mail3.netline.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 661552A6045; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:39:21 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at netline-mail3.netline.ch Received: from netline-mail3.netline.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (netline-mail3.netline.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id pd6_wBKXU0Xr; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:39:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from thor (190.2.62.188.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch [188.62.2.190]) by netline-mail3.netline.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0A712A6042; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:39:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]) by thor with esmtp (Exim 4.90) (envelope-from ) id 1ee1bT-0007Ev-Vv; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:39:19 +0100 Subject: Re: [RFC] Per file OOM badness To: Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin Cc: Andrey Grodzovsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Christian.Koenig@amd.com References: <1516294072-17841-1-git-send-email-andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com> <20180118170006.GG6584@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180123152659.GA21817@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> <20180123153631.GR1526@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michel_D=c3=a4nzer?= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:39:19 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180123153631.GR1526@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-CA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018-01-23 04:36 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 23-01-18 15:27:00, Roman Gushchin wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:00:06PM +0100, 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.freedesktop.org_archives_dri-2Ddevel_2015-2DSeptember_089778.html&d=DwIDAw&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=jJYgtDM7QT-W-Fz_d29HYQ&m=R-JIQjy8rqmH5qD581_VYL0Q7cpWSITKOnBCE-3LI8U&s=QZGqKpKuJ2BtioFGSy8_721owcWJ0J6c6d4jywOwN4w& >>> 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. >>> : >>> : 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. >>> : >>> : So question at every one: What do you think about this approach? >>> : >>> : My biggest concern right now is the patches are messing with a core kernel >>> : structure (adding a field to struct file). Any better idea? I'm considering >>> : to put a callback into file_ops instead. >> >> Hello! >> >> I wonder if groupoom (aka cgroup-aware OOM killer) can work for you? > > I do not think so. The problem is that the allocating context is not > identical with the end consumer. That's actually not really true. Even in cases where a BO is shared with a different process, it is still used at least occasionally in the process which allocated it as well. Otherwise there would be no point in sharing it between processes. There should be no problem if the memory of a shared BO is accounted for in each process sharing it. It might be nice to scale each process' "debt" by 1 / (number of processes sharing it) if possible, but in the worst case accounting it fully in each process should be fine. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer