Re: [RFC] Per file OOM badness

Michel Dänzer
2018-01-30T15:53:00Z

On 2018-01-30 12:56 PM, Christian KA?nig wrote:
> Am 30.01.2018 um 12:42 schrieb Michel DA?nzer:
>> On 2018-01-30 12:36 PM, Nicolai HA?hnle wrote:
>>> On 30.01.2018 12:34, Michel DA?nzer wrote:
>>>> On 2018-01-30 12:28 PM, Christian KA?nig wrote:
>>>>> Am 30.01.2018 um 12:02 schrieb Michel DA?nzer:
>>>>>> On 2018-01-30 11:40 AM, Christian KA?nig wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 30.01.2018 um 10:43 schrieb Michel DA?nzer:
>>>>>>>> [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, I think you and Christian are overthinking this. Let's
>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>> charging the memory to every process which shares a buffer, and go
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>> My problem is that this needs to be bullet prove.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example imagine an application which allocates a lot of BOs,
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> calls fork() and let the parent process die. The file descriptor
>>>>>>> lives
>>>>>>> on in the child process, but the memory is not accounted against the
>>>>>>> child.
>>>>>> What exactly are you referring to by "the file descriptor" here?
>>>>> The file descriptor used to identify the connection to the driver. In
>>>>> other words our drm_file structure in the kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What happens to BO handles in general in this case? If both parent
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> child process keep the same handle for the same BO, one of them
>>>>>> destroying the handle will result in the other one not being able to
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> it anymore either, won't it?
>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> That usage is actually not useful at all, but we already had
>>>>> applications which did exactly that by accident.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention that somebody could do it on purpose.
>>>> Can we just prevent child processes from using their parent's DRM file
>>>> descriptors altogether? Allowing it seems like a bad idea all around.
>>> Existing protocols pass DRM fds between processes though, don't they?
>>>
>>> Not child processes perhaps, but special-casing that seems like awful
>>> design.
>> Fair enough.
>>
>> Can we disallow passing DRM file descriptors which have any buffers
>> allocated? :)
>
> Hehe good point, but I'm sorry I have to ruin that.
>
> The root VM page table is allocated when the DRM file descriptor is
> created and we want to account those to whoever uses the file descriptor
> as well.

Alternatively, since the file descriptor is closed in the sending
process in this case, maybe we can "uncharge" the buffer memory from the
sending process and charge it to the receiving one during the transfer?

> Looking into the fs layer there actually only seem to be two function
> which are involved when a file descriptor is installed/removed from a
> process. So we just need to add some callbacks there.

That could work for file descriptor passing, but I'm not sure it really
helps for the fork case. Let's say we charge the buffer memory to the
child process as well. If either process later destroys a buffer handle,
the buffer becomes inaccessible to the other process as well, however
its memory remains charged to it (even though it may already be freed).

I think using a DRM file descriptor in both parent and child processes
is a pathological case that we really want to prevent rather than
worrying about how to make it work well. It doesn't seem to be working
well in general already anyway.

Maybe we could keep track of which process "owns" a DRM file descriptor,
and return an error from any relevant system calls for it from another
process. When passing an fd, its ownership would transfer to the
receiving process. When forking, the ownership would remain with the
parent process.

--
Earthling Michel DA?nzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer