Re: drm/ttm/memcg/lru: enable memcg tracking for ttm, xe and amdgpu driver (part 2) (v2).
Thomas Hellström <[email protected]> Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:34:51 +0200
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.cgroups,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.freedesktop.lists.intel-xe |
|---|---|
| Organization | Intel Sweden AB, Registration Number: 556189-6027 |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, Dave, On Mon, 2026-07-06 at 15:22 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > This is just a repost with a number of sashiko identified problems > that I fixed. > > I committed the vmstat counters and list lru changes, and they are > now in tree. > > This is the remainder of this series. Intel have expressed interest > in getting > this landed for xe, we can drop the amdgpu changes for now if they > can't get > across the line. > > I've dropped all previous acks/reviews. > > This series adds the memcg counters for GPU active and GPU reclaim to > align > with the two global vmstats. It adds an accounting flag to TTM > alloc/populate, > and enables memcg tracking and shrinker support in TTM. > > Then it adds amdgpu and xe support. > > I think for this to land, Christian holds the main objection which I > still fail > to fully understand beyond it doesn't solve all the problems we ever > have had > with cgroups and drm, so we shouldn't even bother, and maybe we could > do it at > the object level, and integrated with dmem, and android cross process > accounting, > but I still feel this is a good baseline. > > I think this is the right layer to hook this into TTM, where we > allocate memory > and I think accounting for this memory in a proper way should be > done. > > Intel folks (Thomas/Maarten) please review and express concerns as > well. Some questions about the design that might belong in the cover-letter. - First, Since from my understanding gpu shmem allocations are charged against memcg, (i915 igfx and to some extent dgfx), I think this makes sense, although it would be good to have an outlook: 1) What about system memory allocations targeting suspend / hibernate evictions, will they be charged against the root cgroup? 2) Plan for limits on total gpu pages / pinned gpu pages? Is dmemcg a fit for such limits (coexisting with memcg) or should such limits be implemented in memcg? 3) IIRC I noticed a patch for dma-heaps where dmemcg was suggested for android, since it separates GPU memory and system memory. Do we plan simething similar here, based on config options? Thanks, Thomas > > Regards, > Dave.