From: Kenny Ho <y2kenny@gmail.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "Kenny Ho" <Kenny.Ho@amd.com>,
"Kuehling, Felix" <felix.kuehling@amd.com>,
jsparks@cray.com, "amd-gfx list" <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
lkaplan@cray.com, dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Greathouse, Joseph" <joseph.greathouse@amd.com>,
"Alex Deucher" <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] new cgroup controller for gpu/drm subsystem
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 17:40:32 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOWid-fvmxSXtGUtQSZ4Ow1fK+wR8hbnUe5PcsM56EZMOMwb6g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200413205436.GM60335@mtj.duckdns.org>
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:54 PM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Allocations definitely are acceptable and it's not a pre-requisite to have
> work-conserving control first either. Here, given the lack of consensus in
> terms of what even constitute resource units, I don't think it'd be a good
> idea to commit to the proposed interface and believe it'd be beneficial to
> work on interface-wise simpler work conserving controls.
>
...
> I hope the rationales are clear now. What I'm objecting is inclusion of
> premature interface, which is a lot easier and more tempting to do for
> hardware-specific limits and the proposals up until now have been showing
> ample signs of that. I don't think my position has changed much since the
> beginning - do the difficult-to-implement but easy-to-use weights first and
> then you and everyone would have a better idea of what hard-limit or
> allocation interfaces and mechanisms should look like, or even whether they're
> needed.
By lack of consense, do you mean Intel's assertion that a standard is
not a standard until Intel implements it? (That was in the context of
OpenCL language standard with the concept of SubDevice.) I thought
the discussion so far has established that the concept of a compute
unit, while named differently (AMD's CUs, ARM's SCs, Intel's EUs,
Nvidia's SMs, Qualcomm's SPs), is cross vendor. While an AMD CU is
not the same as an Intel EU or Nvidia SM, the same can be said for CPU
cores. If cpuset is acceptable for a diversity of CPU core designs
and arrangements, I don't understand why an interface derived from GPU
SubDevice is considered premature.
If a decade-old language standard is not considered a consenses, can
you elaborate on what might consitute a consenses?
Regards,
Kenny
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kenny Ho <y2kenny@gmail.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "Kenny Ho" <Kenny.Ho@amd.com>,
"Kuehling, Felix" <felix.kuehling@amd.com>,
jsparks@cray.com, "amd-gfx list" <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
lkaplan@cray.com, dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Greathouse, Joseph" <joseph.greathouse@amd.com>,
"Alex Deucher" <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] new cgroup controller for gpu/drm subsystem
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 17:40:32 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOWid-fvmxSXtGUtQSZ4Ow1fK+wR8hbnUe5PcsM56EZMOMwb6g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200413205436.GM60335@mtj.duckdns.org>
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:54 PM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Allocations definitely are acceptable and it's not a pre-requisite to have
> work-conserving control first either. Here, given the lack of consensus in
> terms of what even constitute resource units, I don't think it'd be a good
> idea to commit to the proposed interface and believe it'd be beneficial to
> work on interface-wise simpler work conserving controls.
>
...
> I hope the rationales are clear now. What I'm objecting is inclusion of
> premature interface, which is a lot easier and more tempting to do for
> hardware-specific limits and the proposals up until now have been showing
> ample signs of that. I don't think my position has changed much since the
> beginning - do the difficult-to-implement but easy-to-use weights first and
> then you and everyone would have a better idea of what hard-limit or
> allocation interfaces and mechanisms should look like, or even whether they're
> needed.
By lack of consense, do you mean Intel's assertion that a standard is
not a standard until Intel implements it? (That was in the context of
OpenCL language standard with the concept of SubDevice.) I thought
the discussion so far has established that the concept of a compute
unit, while named differently (AMD's CUs, ARM's SCs, Intel's EUs,
Nvidia's SMs, Qualcomm's SPs), is cross vendor. While an AMD CU is
not the same as an Intel EU or Nvidia SM, the same can be said for CPU
cores. If cpuset is acceptable for a diversity of CPU core designs
and arrangements, I don't understand why an interface derived from GPU
SubDevice is considered premature.
If a decade-old language standard is not considered a consenses, can
you elaborate on what might consitute a consenses?
Regards,
Kenny
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kenny Ho <y2kenny-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "Kenny Ho" <Kenny.Ho-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>,
cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
dri-devel
<dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org>,
"amd-gfx list"
<amd-gfx-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org>,
"Alex Deucher" <alexander.deucher-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>,
"Kuehling, Felix" <felix.kuehling-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>,
"Greathouse,
Joseph" <joseph.greathouse-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>,
jsparks-WVYJKLFxKCc@public.gmane.org,
lkaplan-WVYJKLFxKCc@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] new cgroup controller for gpu/drm subsystem
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 17:40:32 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOWid-fvmxSXtGUtQSZ4Ow1fK+wR8hbnUe5PcsM56EZMOMwb6g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200413205436.GM60335-qYNAdHglDFBN0TnZuCh8vA@public.gmane.org>
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:54 PM Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> Allocations definitely are acceptable and it's not a pre-requisite to have
> work-conserving control first either. Here, given the lack of consensus in
> terms of what even constitute resource units, I don't think it'd be a good
> idea to commit to the proposed interface and believe it'd be beneficial to
> work on interface-wise simpler work conserving controls.
>
...
> I hope the rationales are clear now. What I'm objecting is inclusion of
> premature interface, which is a lot easier and more tempting to do for
> hardware-specific limits and the proposals up until now have been showing
> ample signs of that. I don't think my position has changed much since the
> beginning - do the difficult-to-implement but easy-to-use weights first and
> then you and everyone would have a better idea of what hard-limit or
> allocation interfaces and mechanisms should look like, or even whether they're
> needed.
By lack of consense, do you mean Intel's assertion that a standard is
not a standard until Intel implements it? (That was in the context of
OpenCL language standard with the concept of SubDevice.) I thought
the discussion so far has established that the concept of a compute
unit, while named differently (AMD's CUs, ARM's SCs, Intel's EUs,
Nvidia's SMs, Qualcomm's SPs), is cross vendor. While an AMD CU is
not the same as an Intel EU or Nvidia SM, the same can be said for CPU
cores. If cpuset is acceptable for a diversity of CPU core designs
and arrangements, I don't understand why an interface derived from GPU
SubDevice is considered premature.
If a decade-old language standard is not considered a consenses, can
you elaborate on what might consitute a consenses?
Regards,
Kenny
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-13 21:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <lkaplan@cray.com; daniel@ffwll.ch; nirmoy.das@amd.com; damon.mcdougall@amd.com; juan.zuniga-anaya@amd.com; hannes@cmpxchg.org>
2020-02-26 19:01 ` [PATCH v2 00/11] new cgroup controller for gpu/drm subsystem Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` [PATCH v2 01/11] cgroup: Introduce cgroup for drm subsystem Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` [PATCH v2 02/11] drm, cgroup: Bind drm and cgroup subsystem Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` [PATCH v2 03/11] drm, cgroup: Initialize drmcg properties Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` [PATCH v2 04/11] drm, cgroup: Add total GEM buffer allocation stats Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` [PATCH v2 05/11] drm, cgroup: Add peak " Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` [PATCH v2 06/11] drm, cgroup: Add GEM buffer allocation count stats Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` [PATCH v2 07/11] drm, cgroup: Add total GEM buffer allocation limit Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` [PATCH v2 08/11] drm, cgroup: Add peak " Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] drm, cgroup: Add compute as gpu cgroup resource Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` [PATCH v2 10/11] drm, cgroup: add update trigger after limit change Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` [PATCH v2 11/11] drm/amdgpu: Integrate with DRM cgroup Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-02-26 19:01 ` Kenny Ho
2020-03-17 16:03 ` [PATCH v2 00/11] new cgroup controller for gpu/drm subsystem Kenny Ho
2020-03-17 16:03 ` Kenny Ho
2020-03-17 16:03 ` Kenny Ho
2020-03-24 18:46 ` Tejun Heo
2020-03-24 18:46 ` Tejun Heo
2020-03-24 18:46 ` Tejun Heo
2020-03-24 18:49 ` Kenny Ho
2020-03-24 18:49 ` Kenny Ho
2020-03-24 18:49 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-13 19:11 ` Tejun Heo
2020-04-13 19:11 ` Tejun Heo
2020-04-13 19:11 ` Tejun Heo
2020-04-13 20:12 ` Ho, Kenny
2020-04-13 20:12 ` Ho, Kenny
2020-04-13 20:12 ` Ho, Kenny
2020-04-13 20:17 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-13 20:17 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-13 20:17 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-13 20:54 ` Tejun Heo
2020-04-13 20:54 ` Tejun Heo
2020-04-13 20:54 ` Tejun Heo
2020-04-13 21:40 ` Kenny Ho [this message]
2020-04-13 21:40 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-13 21:40 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-13 21:53 ` Tejun Heo
2020-04-13 21:53 ` Tejun Heo
2020-04-13 21:53 ` Tejun Heo
2020-04-14 12:20 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 12:20 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 12:20 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 12:47 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-14 12:47 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-14 12:47 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-14 12:52 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 12:52 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 12:52 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 13:14 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-14 13:14 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-14 13:14 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-14 13:26 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 13:26 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 13:26 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 13:50 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-14 13:50 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-14 13:50 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-14 14:04 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 14:04 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 14:04 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 14:29 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-14 14:29 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-14 14:29 ` Kenny Ho
2020-04-14 15:01 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 15:01 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-04-14 15:01 ` Daniel Vetter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAOWid-fvmxSXtGUtQSZ4Ow1fK+wR8hbnUe5PcsM56EZMOMwb6g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=y2kenny@gmail.com \
--cc=Kenny.Ho@amd.com \
--cc=alexander.deucher@amd.com \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=felix.kuehling@amd.com \
--cc=joseph.greathouse@amd.com \
--cc=jsparks@cray.com \
--cc=lkaplan@cray.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.