Hello everyone,
To summarize the issue I'm trying to address here: Processes can allocate
resources through a file descriptor without being held responsible for it.
I'm not explaining all the details again. See here for a more deeply
description of the problem:
https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/20
On 2018-04-04 11:36 AM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 04.04.2018, 11:09 +0200 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
>> On 2018-03-26 04:36 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>> 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
Am Mittwoch, den 04.04.2018, 11:09 +0200 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
> On 2018-03-26 04:36 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > 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 2
On 2018-03-26 04:36 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> 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 Hock
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
On 2018-01-30 12:56 PM, Christian König wrote:
> Am 30.01.2018 um 12:42 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
>> 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:
>
Am 30.01.2018 um 12:42 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
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 1
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:
>
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 r
On 30.01.2018 11:48, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 2018-01-30 11:42 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:43:10AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 2018-01-30 10:31 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
I guess a good first order approximation would be if we simply charge any
newly allocated buffers
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 f
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 (m
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
On 2018-01-30 11:42 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:43:10AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 2018-01-30 10:31 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>>> I guess a good first order approximation would be if we simply charge any
>>> newly allocated buffers to the process that created them
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:43:10AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 2018-01-30 10:31 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 01:11:09PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> >> Am 24.01.2018 um 12:50 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> >>> On Wed 24-01-18 12:23:10, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 2018-01
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
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
On 2018-01-30 10:31 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 01:11:09PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 24.01.2018 um 12:50 schrieb Michal Hocko:
>>> 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
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 01:11:09PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> Am 24.01.2018 um 12:50 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > 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 O
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 shoul
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 shoul
Am 24.01.2018 um 12:50 schrieb Michal Hocko:
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 th
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 refere
On 2018-01-24 12:01 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 24-01-18 11:27:15, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 2018-01-24 10:28 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> So how exactly then helps to kill one of those processes? The memory
>>> stays pinned behind or do I still misunderstand?
>>
>> Fundamentally, the
On Wed 24-01-18 11:27:15, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 2018-01-24 10:28 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > So how exactly then helps to kill one of those processes? The memory
> > stays pinned behind or do I still misunderstand?
>
> Fundamentally, the memory is only released once all references to the
On 2018-01-24 10:28 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 23-01-18 17:39:19, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 2018-01-23 04:36 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> 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 G
On Tue 23-01-18 17:39:19, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 2018-01-23 04:36 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > 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 re
On 2018-01-23 04:36 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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 fe
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
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-3
On Fri 19-01-18 17:54:36, Christian König wrote:
> Am 19.01.2018 um 13:20 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > On Fri 19-01-18 13:13:51, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 19-01-18 12:37:51, Christian König wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > The per file descriptor badness is/was just the much easier approach to
> > >
On 01/22/2018 06:23 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:47:48 -0500 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://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-September/0
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:47:48 -0500 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://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-September/089778.html
>
> This is the same idea and I
Michel Dänzer writes:
> On 2018-01-19 11:02 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 2018-01-19 10:58 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 19.01.2018 um 10:32 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
On 2018-01-19 09:39 AM, Christian König wrote:
> Am 19.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Michal Hocko:
>> OK, in that case I
Am 19.01.2018 um 13:20 schrieb Michal Hocko:
On Fri 19-01-18 13:13:51, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 19-01-18 12:37:51, Christian König wrote:
[...]
The per file descriptor badness is/was just the much easier approach to
solve the issue, because the drivers already knew which client is currently
u
On 2018-01-19 12:37 PM, Christian König wrote:
> Am 19.01.2018 um 11:40 schrieb Michal Hocko:
>> On Fri 19-01-18 09:39:03, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 19.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Michal Hocko:
>> [...]
OK, in that case I would propose a different approach. We already
have rss_stat. So w
On Fri 19-01-18 12:37:51, Christian König wrote:
[...]
> The per file descriptor badness is/was just the much easier approach to
> solve the issue, because the drivers already knew which client is currently
> using which buffer objects.
>
> I of course agree that file descriptors can be shared bet
On Fri 19-01-18 13:13:51, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 19-01-18 12:37:51, Christian König wrote:
> [...]
> > The per file descriptor badness is/was just the much easier approach to
> > solve the issue, because the drivers already knew which client is currently
> > using which buffer objects.
> >
>
On Fri 19-01-18 09:39:03, Christian König wrote:
> Am 19.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Michal Hocko:
[...]
> > OK, in that case I would propose a different approach. We already
> > have rss_stat. So why do not we simply add a new counter there
> > MM_KERNELPAGES and consider those in oom_badness? The ru
On 2018-01-19 11:02 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 2018-01-19 10:58 AM, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 19.01.2018 um 10:32 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
>>> On 2018-01-19 09:39 AM, Christian König wrote:
Am 19.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> OK, in that case I would propose a different appr
Am 19.01.2018 um 11:40 schrieb Michal Hocko:
On Fri 19-01-18 09:39:03, Christian König wrote:
Am 19.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Michal Hocko:
[...]
OK, in that case I would propose a different approach. We already
have rss_stat. So why do not we simply add a new counter there
MM_KERNELPAGES and c
On 2018-01-19 10:58 AM, Christian König wrote:
> Am 19.01.2018 um 10:32 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
>> On 2018-01-19 09:39 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 19.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Michal Hocko:
On Thu 18-01-18 12:01:32, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Michal Hocko writes:
>
>> On Thu 18-01-1
On 2018年01月19日 16:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
[removed the broken quoting - please try to use an email client which
doesn't mess up the qouted text]
On Fri 19-01-18 06:01:26, He, Roger wrote:
[...]
I think you are misunderstanding here.
Actually for now, the memory in TTM Pools already has mm_shr
Am 19.01.2018 um 10:32 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
On 2018-01-19 09:39 AM, Christian König wrote:
Am 19.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Michal Hocko:
On Thu 18-01-18 12:01:32, Eric Anholt wrote:
Michal Hocko writes:
On Thu 18-01-18 18:00:06, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 18-01-18 11:47:48, Andrey Grodzov
On 2018-01-19 09:39 AM, Christian König wrote:
> Am 19.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Michal Hocko:
>> On Thu 18-01-18 12:01:32, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>> Michal Hocko writes:
>>>
On Thu 18-01-18 18:00:06, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 18-01-18 11:47:48, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
>> Hi, this ser
On Thu 18-01-18 18:00:06, 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://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-September/08
[removed the broken quoting - please try to use an email client which
doesn't mess up the qouted text]
On Fri 19-01-18 06:01:26, He, Roger wrote:
[...]
> I think you are misunderstanding here.
> Actually for now, the memory in TTM Pools already has mm_shrink which is
> implemented in ttm_pool_mm_
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://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-September/089778.html
>
> This is the same idea and I've just adr
On Thu 18-01-18 12:01:32, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Michal Hocko writes:
>
> > On Thu 18-01-18 18:00:06, 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 ca
Am 19.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Michal Hocko:
On Thu 18-01-18 12:01:32, Eric Anholt wrote:
Michal Hocko writes:
On Thu 18-01-18 18:00:06, 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
Am 18.01.2018 um 21:01 schrieb Eric Anholt:
Michal Hocko writes:
[SNIP]
But files are not killable, they can be shared... In other words this
doesn't help the oom killer to make an educated guess at all.
Maybe some more context would help the discussion?
Thanks for doing this. Wanted to rep
sky
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 12:48 AM
To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux...@kvack.org;
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; amd-...@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Koenig, Christian
Subject: [RFC] Per file OOM badness
Hi, this series is a revised version of an RFC sent by Christian König a few
essage-
From: dri-devel [mailto:dri-devel-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of
Andrey Grodzovsky
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 12:48 AM
To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux...@kvack.org;
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; amd-...@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Koenig, Christian
Subject: [RFC] Pe
; Koenig,
Christian
Subject: Re: [RFC] Per file OOM badness
On Thu 18-01-18 18:00:06, 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
Michal Hocko writes:
> On Thu 18-01-18 18:00:06, 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://lists.freedesktop.org/archive
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://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-September/089778.html
This is the same idea and I've just adressed his concern from the original RFC
and switched to a ca
Hello everyone,
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 wher
57 matches
Mail list logo
