From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Parav Pandit Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 0/6] rdma controller support Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 02:34:49 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1452020286-9508-1-git-send-email-pandit.parav@gmail.com> <20160105215623.GH5995@mtj.duckdns.org> <20160107150718.GC29797@mtj.duckdns.org> <20160107200604.GE1898@mtj.duckdns.org> <20160107203425.GG1898@mtj.duckdns.org> <20160107204921.GI1898@mtj.duckdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jQpsdzVrUGrdpq4ReIDxzyYcamSnrXtK9U7x5hAAPAI=; b=Z5qzxFi7QiW+o4RpmKXw4gpjV9bpuIZbo/lQzEejCYlFgXh44OTjVFYKZU+YvAYss4 56S+oU3kyG0p9e6v/0ILw2Gk6SlYgSrugCzXrotJtMgSCH6fjsc06LOjV9eaYh9KGFkk T5IxFRZXCWSutiUIIS9dk8ZidpwwagXFpAGzVBMsBumVcbf9QyUFP7adH+ecTtPl8VID w5bHpaPol5rEFXa6iJp5055wyr+sSAbc3xaOEbseUizKPF9fscbzsaV4C0oF0D+B3CDg jAa9zKTKLap+TQ5/W7nQvbs9hbWOZ4LOrKjfRNOYjjO1mXiZ8XHfmy7FNbdLqYeZnhZt YYFQ== In-Reply-To: <20160107204921.GI1898@mtj.duckdns.org> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Tejun Heo Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, lizefan@huawei.com, Johannes Weiner , Doug Ledford , Liran Liss , "Hefty, Sean" , Jason Gunthorpe , Haggai Eran , Jonathan Corbet , james.l.morris@oracle.com, serge@hallyn.com, Or Gerlitz , Matan Barak , raindel@mellanox.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Parav. > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 02:16:59AM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote: >> Let me think through it. Its been late night for me currently. So dont >> want to conclude in hurry. > > Sure thing. > >> At high level it looks doable by maintaining hash table head on per >> device basis, that further reduces hash contention by one level. >> I will get back on this tomorrow. > > Hmmm... why would it need a hash table? Let's say there's a struct > rdma_device for each rdma_device and then that stuct can simply have > rdma_device->res_table[] or whatever to track limits and consumptions > and rdma_device->res_enabled mask to tell which resources are enabled > on the device. > That table won't be sufficient, because rdma_device is shared among multiple rdma_cgroups each such cgroup has different individual resource limit and usage count. This is currently rpool structure. For res_table[] needs to be per cgroup basis. > Thanks. > > -- > tejun