Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/11] new cgroup controller for gpu/drm subsystem

From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Kenny Ho <y2kenny@gmail.com>
Cc: joseph.greathouse@amd.com, "Kenny Ho" <Kenny.Ho@amd.com>,
	jsparks@cray.com, "amd-gfx list" <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	lkaplan@cray.com, "Alex Deucher" <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
	"Jerome Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/11] new cgroup controller for gpu/drm subsystem
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:21:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190702132144.GC15868@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOWid-e-gxFBoiBii4wZs0HMnHwCvJWOQWpNopdPHi8So53gNw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 01:10:28AM -0400, Kenny Ho wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 3:24 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > Another question I have: What about HMM? With the device memory zone
> > the core mm will be a lot more involved in managing that, but I also
> > expect that we'll have classic buffer-based management for a long time
> > still. So these need to work together, and I fear slightly that we'll
> > have memcg and drmcg fighting over the same pieces a bit perhaps?
> >
> > Adding Jerome, maybe he has some thoughts on this.
> 
> I just did a bit of digging and this looks like the current behaviour:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.1/vm/hmm.html#memory-cgroup-memcg-and-rss-accounting
> 
> "For now device memory is accounted as any regular page in rss
> counters (either anonymous if device page is used for anonymous, file
> if device page is used for file backed page or shmem if device page is
> used for shared memory). This is a deliberate choice to keep existing
> applications, that might start using device memory without knowing
> about it, running unimpacted.
> 
> A drawback is that the OOM killer might kill an application using a
> lot of device memory and not a lot of regular system memory and thus
> not freeing much system memory. We want to gather more real world
> experience on how applications and system react under memory pressure
> in the presence of device memory before deciding to account device
> memory differently."

Hm ... I also just learned that the device memory stuff, at least the hmm
part, is probably getting removed again, and only the hmm_mirror part of
hmm will be kept. So maybe this doesn't matter to us. But really no idea.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel