From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCHv12 0/3] rdmacg: IB/core: rdma controller support Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 17:51:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20161018215134.GB2761@htj.duckdns.org> References: <20161005112206.GC9282@leon.nu> <20161010044623.GI9282@leon.nu> <20161010122545.GA27360@mtj.duckdns.org> <20161010132014.GD29742@mtj.duckdns.org> <20161013231413.GA32534@mtj.duckdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Parav Pandit Cc: Leon Romanovsky , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-rdma , Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Doug Ledford , Christoph Hellwig , Liran Liss , "Hefty, Sean" , Jason Gunthorpe , Haggai Eran , james.l.morris-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Or Gerlitz , Matan Barak List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:32:01AM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > I think what you want is just a way to specify absolute limits using > > percentages of what's available at the time of configuration - > > e.g. being able to say "allow upto 30% of what's available in the > > parent". > > Yes. I am concerned about how to configure < 1% value to avoid > floating point math in kernel as thats discouraged. > Configuring in range of 1 to 100% for a given resource limits to only > 100 or less cgroup instances which I think is not desired. Heh, we can go for per-mil and use %0 as the suffix if absolutely necessary but is this a real issue? > > If so, the simplest way would be simply updating the > > existing knobs to accept % inputs in addition to absolute values on > > writes. > > I was not sure to overload rdma.max file for accepting % inputs as > thats not done in other cgroups. So I was thinking more of weights > interface which avoids floating point problem and also allows much > wider configuration range. I think it's a lot more consistent to implement all absoulte limits through max. weight is for actual proportional control which this isn't. It's just a fancy way of specifying absolute limits. Thanks. -- tejun