Re: GEM memory DOS (WAS Re: [PATCH 3/3] drm/ttm: under memory pressure minimize the size of memory pool)

[Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>]

On 08/13/2014 02:40 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com> wrote:
>> On 08/13/2014 12:42 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06:25AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>>> On 08/13/2014 05:52 AM, Jérôme Glisse wrote:
>>>>> From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> When experiencing memory pressure we want to minimize pool size so that
>>>>> memory we just shrinked is not added back again just as the next thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will divide by 2 the maximum pool size for each device each time
>>>>> the pool have to shrink. The limit is bumped again is next allocation
>>>>> happen after one second since the last shrink. The one second delay is
>>>>> obviously an arbitrary choice.
>>>> Jérôme,
>>>>
>>>> I don't like this patch. It adds extra complexity and its usefulness is
>>>> highly questionable.
>>>> There are a number of caches in the system, and if all of them added
>>>> some sort of voluntary shrink heuristics like this, we'd end up with
>>>> impossible-to-debug unpredictable performance issues.
>>>>
>>>> We should let the memory subsystem decide when to reclaim pages from
>>>> caches and what caches to reclaim them from.
>>> Yeah, artificially limiting your cache from growing when your shrinker
>>> gets called will just break the equal-memory pressure the core mm uses to
>>> rebalance between all caches when workload changes. In i915 we let
>>> everything grow without artificial bounds and only rely upon the shrinker
>>> callbacks to ensure we don't consume more than our fair share of available
>>> memory overall.
>>> -Daniel
>> Now when you bring i915 memory usage up, Daniel,
>> I can't refrain from bringing up the old user-space unreclaimable kernel
>> memory issue, for which gem open is a good example ;) Each time
>> user-space opens a gem handle, some un-reclaimable kernel memory is
>> allocated, for which there is no accounting, so theoretically I think a
>> user can bring a system to unusability this way.
>>
>> Typically there are various limits on unreclaimable objects like this,
>> like open file descriptors, and IIRC the kernel even has an internal
>> limit on the number of struct files you initialize, based on the
>> available system memory, so dma-buf / prime should already have some
>> sort of protection.
> gem->filp points to a fresh shmem file, which itself is limited like
> dmabuf. That should suffice, right?
>
> Thanks
> David
I'm thinking of situations where you have a gem name and open a new
handle. It allocates a new unaccounted idr object. Admittedly you'd have
to open a hell of a lot of new handles to stress the system, but that's
an example of the situation I'm thinking of. Similarly perhaps if you
create a gem handle from a prime file-descriptor but I haven't looked at
that code in detail.

Thanks

/Thomas

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel