Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] mm: Throttle shrinkers harder

2014-04-28 Thread Dave Hansen
On 04/26/2014 06:10 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: >>> > > Thanks for the pointer to >>> > > register_oom_notifier(), I can use that to make sure that we do purge >>> > > everything from the GPU, and do a sanity check at the same time, before >>> > > we start killing processes. >> > >> > Actually, that o

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] mm: Throttle shrinkers harder

2014-04-26 Thread Chris Wilson
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:18:57AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 04/25/2014 12:23 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 03:35:47PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > >> On 04/24/2014 08:39 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 08:21:58AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > Is i

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] mm: Throttle shrinkers harder

2014-04-25 Thread Dave Hansen
Poking around with those tracepoints, I don't see the i915 shrinker getting run, only i915_gem_inactive_count() being called. It must be returning 0 because we're never even _getting_ to the tracepoints themselves after calling i915_gem_inactive_count(). This is on my laptop, and I haven't been a

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] mm: Throttle shrinkers harder

2014-04-25 Thread Dave Hansen
On 04/25/2014 12:23 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 03:35:47PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 04/24/2014 08:39 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 08:21:58AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: Is it possible that there's still a get_page() reference that's holding >>>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] mm: Throttle shrinkers harder

2014-04-25 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 03:35:47PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 04/24/2014 08:39 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 08:21:58AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > >> Is it possible that there's still a get_page() reference that's holding > >> those pages in place from the graphics code?

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] mm: Throttle shrinkers harder

2014-04-24 Thread Dave Hansen
On 04/24/2014 08:39 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 08:21:58AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: >> Is it possible that there's still a get_page() reference that's holding >> those pages in place from the graphics code? > > Not from i915.ko. The last resort of our shrinker is to drop all

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] mm: Throttle shrinkers harder

2014-04-24 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 08:21:58AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 04/23/2014 10:58 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > [ 4756.750938] Node 0 DMA free:14664kB min:32kB low:40kB high:48kB > > active_anon:0kB inactive_anon:1024kB active_file:0kB inactive_file:4kB > > unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isola

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] mm: Throttle shrinkers harder

2014-04-24 Thread Dave Hansen
On 04/23/2014 10:58 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > [ 4756.750938] Node 0 DMA free:14664kB min:32kB low:40kB high:48kB > active_anon:0kB inactive_anon:1024kB active_file:0kB inactive_file:4kB > unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:15992kB > managed:15908kB mlocked:0kB dirty:0k

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] mm: Throttle shrinkers harder

2014-04-23 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:14:36PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 04/22/2014 12:30 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> > > During testing of i915.ko with working texture sets larger than RAM, we > >> > > encounter OOM with plenty of memory still trapped within writeback, > >> > > e.g: > >> > > > >> > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] mm: Throttle shrinkers harder

2014-04-23 Thread Dave Hansen
On 04/22/2014 12:30 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > > During testing of i915.ko with working texture sets larger than RAM, we >> > > encounter OOM with plenty of memory still trapped within writeback, e.g: >> > > >> > > [ 42.386039] active_anon:10134 inactive_anon:1900781 isolated_anon:32 >> > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] mm: Throttle shrinkers harder

2014-04-22 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:14:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:05:06 +0100 Chris Wilson > wrote: > > > During testing of i915.ko with working texture sets larger than RAM, we > > encounter OOM with plenty of memory still trapped within writeback, e.g: > > > > [ 42.386

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] mm: Throttle shrinkers harder

2014-04-18 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:05:06 +0100 Chris Wilson wrote: > During testing of i915.ko with working texture sets larger than RAM, we > encounter OOM with plenty of memory still trapped within writeback, e.g: > > [ 42.386039] active_anon:10134 inactive_anon:1900781 isolated_anon:32 > active_file: