Received: by 10.223.176.5 with SMTP id f5csp4198342wra; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:44:43 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226phM6NhkSniRIZynm6mOnErezr9uPb5BDqSjraABoiInYfzQm+JYrI5ZnC8BXNVeuWesDH X-Received: by 10.98.155.8 with SMTP id r8mr29667044pfd.94.1517312682890; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:44:42 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1517312682; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Xuvikan0UcLUIEfPk3YazyB74/oZuHxntOci8agGP/3SVY57IjRrnI2vegTdLTrbLI oyh4zD2z5KZCPrgkzXIZRHtumrvjcAH1NCXNszhZ7B/PpFGxI8gHZzalL6hGY48lE3g7 j29PPg+5kkQ6dPIa0cZsg5w61SjUN/2jJz6nI21c1Rn+xpGLT6qw3TwUi419vXLWYkuD jQ6/qctMSGRwJf5l7XO2EaLYFB0C2xKnqst3xWGxqBJzwuZZZd10VvvpRtrtYMHBDkKV ho2Ypa1s030Cf5mgduwq8NTBNA503kWPxGML6TID8hosPYHn2qXZ24K2jpA/37uifOCY GA8w== 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=+LCNjzHR6N9syYIOMkN19swcfo50XzvHDeo72ZLzKl0=; b=eLN7jrahOU0cNTkEGvOmsKzG+YlUSP70nXHRpSzzpqa/PB9Tn6EG9IdHtZQPTnNSpg 0W7nsUOIxzZZSsoCaJkDhto6JTsG51pO2bk2iaUsU5FPrlXtFvaJ2Idt0I+0UNAGNnpw fI+88CXRs6XrrKSRaP99uaQPBFQqa/MOddsJUZrMErG70GkLx9EP/rg5Vw5tqGjNh+69 rjP2Se8lWpodXU4FOcRjnABW4x0HsLxpLQVWzsom+4zTPCjRqUx99DfU64oyMUOW+orj a6O2FpFM9m8899WN/LaJ5KD5IJyS7nCSbceEOH0OEfsi16yt39Ev4+Hf6UUp/tphJ/Ap sFZQ== 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 y19si14067607pfa.188.2018.01.30.03.44.28; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 03:44:42 -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 S1751804AbeA3LmY (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:42:24 -0500 Received: from mail.netline.ch ([148.251.143.178]:44292 "EHLO netline-mail3.netline.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751718AbeA3LmX (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2018 06:42:23 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netline-mail3.netline.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168122A6046; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:42:22 +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 UMzmj7d2ea_0; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:42:21 +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 2640E2A6042; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:42:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]) by thor with esmtp (Exim 4.90) (envelope-from ) id 1egUIu-0002Bo-Ij; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:42:20 +0100 Subject: Re: [RFC] Per file OOM badness To: =?UTF-8?Q?Nicolai_H=c3=a4hnle?= , christian.koenig@amd.com, Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org References: <20180118170006.GG6584@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180123152659.GA21817@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> <20180123153631.GR1526@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180124092847.GI1526@dhcp22.suse.cz> <583f328e-ff46-c6a4-8548-064259995766@daenzer.net> <20180124110141.GA28465@dhcp22.suse.cz> <36b49523-792d-45f9-8617-32b6d9d77418@daenzer.net> <20180124115059.GC28465@dhcp22.suse.cz> <381a868c-78fd-d0d1-029e-a2cf4ab06d37@gmail.com> <20180130093145.GE25930@phenom.ffwll.local> <3db43c1a-59b8-af86-2b87-c783c629f512@daenzer.net> <3026d8c5-9313-cb8b-91ef-09c02baf27db@amd.com> <445628d3-677c-a9f8-171f-7d74a603c61d@daenzer.net> <82d5894f-f4ea-98cc-068a-5d470f5267df@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michel_D=c3=a4nzer?= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:42:20 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <82d5894f-f4ea-98cc-068a-5d470f5267df@gmail.com> 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 2018-01-30 12:36 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote: > On 30.01.2018 12:34, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> On 2018-01-30 12:28 PM, Christian König wrote: >>> Am 30.01.2018 um 12:02 schrieb Michel Dänzer: >>>> On 2018-01-30 11:40 AM, Christian König wrote: >>>>> Am 30.01.2018 um 10:43 schrieb Michel Dänzer: >>>>>> [SNIP] >>>>>>> Would it be ok to hang onto potentially arbitrary mmget references >>>>>>> essentially forever? If that's ok I think we can do your process >>>>>>> based >>>>>>> account (minus a few minor inaccuracies for shared stuff perhaps, >>>>>>> but no >>>>>>> one cares about that). >>>>>> Honestly, I think you and Christian are overthinking this. Let's try >>>>>> charging the memory to every process which shares a buffer, and go >>>>>> from >>>>>> there. >>>>> My problem is that this needs to be bullet prove. >>>>> >>>>> For example imagine an application which allocates a lot of BOs, then >>>>> calls fork() and let the parent process die. The file descriptor lives >>>>> on in the child process, but the memory is not accounted against the >>>>> child. >>>> What exactly are you referring to by "the file descriptor" here? >>> >>> The file descriptor used to identify the connection to the driver. In >>> other words our drm_file structure in the kernel. >>> >>>> What happens to BO handles in general in this case? If both parent and >>>> child process keep the same handle for the same BO, one of them >>>> destroying the handle will result in the other one not being able to >>>> use >>>> it anymore either, won't it? >>> Correct. >>> >>> That usage is actually not useful at all, but we already had >>> applications which did exactly that by accident. >>> >>> Not to mention that somebody could do it on purpose. >> >> Can we just prevent child processes from using their parent's DRM file >> descriptors altogether? Allowing it seems like a bad idea all around. > > Existing protocols pass DRM fds between processes though, don't they? > > Not child processes perhaps, but special-casing that seems like awful > design. Fair enough. Can we disallow passing DRM file descriptors which have any buffers allocated? :) -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer