Re: [PATCH 09/11] drm, cgroup: Introduce lgpu as DRM cgroup resource

[Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 03:28:40PM -0500, Kenny Ho wrote:
> Can you elaborate, per your understanding, how the lgpu weight
> attribute differ from the io.weight you suggested?  Is it merely a

Oh, it's the non-weight part which is problematic.

> formatting/naming issue or is it the implementation details that you
> find troubling?  From my perspective, the weight attribute implements
> as you suggested back in RFCv4 (proportional control on top of a unit
> - either physical or time unit.)
> 
> Perhaps more explicit questions would help me understand what you
> mean. If I remove the 'list' and 'count' attributes leaving just
> weight, is that satisfactory?  Are you saying the idea of affinity or

At least from interface pov, yes, although I think it should be clear
what the weight controls.

> named-resource is banned from cgroup entirely (even though it exists
> in the form of cpuset already and users are interested in having such
> options [i.e. userspace OpenCL] when needed?)
> 
> To be clear, I am not saying no proportional control.  I am saying
> give the user the options, which is what has been implemented.

We can get there if we *really* have to but not from the get-go but
I'd rather avoid affinities if at all possible.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun