Re: [RFC] Per file OOM badness

[Christian KÃnig]

Am 24.01.2018 um 12:50 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> On Wed 24-01-18 12:23:10, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> > On 2018-01-24 12:01 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 24-01-18 11:27:15, Michel DÃnzer 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?

Not that I knew of.

As I said before we need some kind of callback that a process now starts 
to use a file descriptor, but without anything from that file descriptor 
mapped into the address space.

Regards,
Christian.