> What about getting a coherent view of the total GPU private memory > consumption of a single process? I think the same caveat and solution > would apply. For the coherency issue, now I understand your concerns. Let me re-think and come back. A total value per process is an option if we'd like precise total GPU private memory per process. We'll check if there're other options as well. Thanks for pointing this out! On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:03 PM Yiwei Zhang <zzyiwei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Didn't realize gmail has a plain text mode ; ) > > > In my opinion tracking per process is good, but you cannot sidestep the > > question of tracking performance by saying that there is only few > > processes using the GPU. > Agreed, I shouldn't make that statement. Thanks for the info as well! > > > What is an "active" GPU private allocation? This implies that there are > > also inactive allocations, what are those? > "active" is used to claim that we don't track the allocation history. We just > want the currently allocated memory. > > > What about getting a coherent view of the total GPU private memory > > consumption of a single process? I think the same caveat and solution > > would apply. > Realistically I assume drivers won't change the values during a snapshot > call? But adding one more node per process for total GPU private memory > allocated would be good for test enforcement for the coherency as well. I'd > suggest an additional "/sys/devices/<some TBD root>/<pid>/gpu_mem/total" > node. > > Best, > Yiwei _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
