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. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
