From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leon Romanovsky Subject: Re: [PATCHv12 0/3] rdmacg: IB/core: rdma controller support Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 18:38:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20161110163837.GE28957@leon.nu> References: <20161103180006.GL3617@leon.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZRyEpB+iJ+qUx0kp" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: To: Parav Pandit Cc: Liran Liss , Tejun Heo , "cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , linux-rdma , Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Doug Ledford , Christoph Hellwig , "Hefty, Sean" , Jason Gunthorpe , Haggai Eran , "james.l.morris-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , Or Gerlitz , Matan Barak --ZRyEpB+iJ+qUx0kp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 01:11:18PM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote: > Hi Leon, Tejun, Christoph, Liran, Doug, Matan, > > So are you ok with below proposal? I'm fine with it and it looks like very clean approach to solve our multi-object future. > > 1. Define two resources by rdmacg. > (a) hca_handles (covers doorbell pages) > (b) hca_resources (mr, pd, qp, srq, vendor defined, all consolidated count) > Both cannot be combined as explained in [1]. > > 2. User configures absolute count for above two resources (similar to > today's file descriptors, pid cgroup controller max limit) > > Leon, > Let us know if you have any further discussions during LPC on > questions of [2] in using percentage based scheme or otherwise. No, we didn't have. > > Parav > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg42771.html > [2] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg42768.html > > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Liran Liss wrote: > >> From: Parav Pandit [mailto:pandit.parav-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org] > > > >> > > >> > Hmm.. > >> > I guess that you are right. > >> > > >> > So we can add another count for "HCA handles", > >> I prefer this. This keeps it vendor agnostic and clean if we don't go percentage > >> route. > > > > OK; let's do it. > > > >> Would indirection table also fall in this category? > >> > > > > No. It's just another HCA resource... > > > >> > or alternatively, each provider will restrict the number of handles > >> > per device to a reasonable small number (which won't be treated as one of the > >> "HCA resources"). > >> This would require vendor drivers to get the understanding of cgroup object > >> and pid and that breaks the modular approach. I like to avoid this. > >> > >> > Typically, a process shouldn't need to open more than a single handle... > >> Right. well behaved application won't do multiple handles. --ZRyEpB+iJ+qUx0kp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJYJKKNAAoJEORje4g2clin0gEQAM+mbzJCErSu4fqp02TAiqDd jP1ubrKtE2Pg9QR05vFwvFlB/62R+xpr8dApAokGk2XaJWAVoSd11I7dNrFac9OP Qr+gztkUAT6IN754P+7SxQNuBig+zX1cOHy6sZX18A4tSruPk8YGZ4uj7/v4Mv7y Fw/JYLHjzxlOkzsdFDaHH3wFBoo5/ThHFpoX+0SCf3I/O7ZtjYcwhiBmyKCagqbP 13K9R9q6XlkJObvDNLCz84asqV7tAmbDsiuYFqvYqVxun88Fag67F7acUs3BUNIz BbnPkeVAwh6lwwqlpmqZOw6edkGCW3FD4/L+LbVNxdPUNNhF8deakOixJKXYAo2v D1sy0vmnBLVgpjudlXYHGdCkl5ctM+QjvAZBDCPYR2032iKr3NRXD/8jhJQ/JSoU 2pcAHNGM/cKkreZWT3f70RMz9+twuGAfmHFEsHCRZy0Rv7aTyyX2zahkyjyb6Qa6 aN7Z3PeCRfPx10XA/nPrQGxaVlnsWe/si9d88jVT8nZ1MU219SyFdbM4NsqsIdHO j0JKF5kSoHaPmrnPvFXiETrymZ5EUpk8dZjrSZjdrTpdnimFZ8ju+76XFPr0yGlg VoOundnJXC8wdSJiEjK3psF4ZwD4+C+cp2Y1RmVnQD2ccMq1RYG3a/YwWsdFkKLm REdJPO8H7t7uPGH8vdeS =wq4a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZRyEpB+iJ+qUx0kp--