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 <liranl-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> 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.