Hi all, Am Dienstag, den 30.01.2018, 11:28 +0100 schrieb Michal Hocko: > On Tue 30-01-18 10:29:10, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > 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. > > add_mm_counter() and I would add a new counter e.g. MM_KERNEL_PAGES. So is anyone still working on this? This is hurting us bad enough that I don't want to keep this topic rotting for another year. If no one is currently working on this I would volunteer to give the simple "just account private, non-shared buffers in process RSS" a spin. Regards, Lucas
