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. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
