From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Parav Pandit Subject: Re: [PATCHv12 0/3] rdmacg: IB/core: rdma controller support Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:14:23 +0530 Message-ID: References: <20161018215134.GB2761@htj.duckdns.org> <20161019143345.GA18532@htj.duckdns.org> <20161019192006.GB3044@htj.duckdns.org> <20161019200536.GC3044@htj.duckdns.org> <20161031065441.GY3617@leon.nu> <20161103180006.GL3617@leon.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Liran Liss Cc: Leon Romanovsky , Tejun Heo , "cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , linux-rdma , Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Doug Ledford , Christoph Hellwig , "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 Hi Liran, On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Liran Liss wrote: >> From: Parav Pandit [mailto:pandit.parav-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org] > >> >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Liran Liss wrote: >> >> From: Parav Pandit [mailto:pandit.parav-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org] >> > >> >> > >> >> > A global HCA metric is indeed in the right direction. >> >> > However, rethinking this, I think that we should specify the metric >> >> > in terms of >> >> RDMA objects rather than percentage. >> >> > Basically, any resource that consumes an IDR is charged. >> >> > >> >> If metric definition is based on RDMA objects (count) and not based >> >> on percentage, how would user specify the metric without really >> >> specifying object type. >> >> Current patch defines the metric as absolute numbers and objects as well. >> >> >> > >> > That is the requested change. The absolute number would account for any >> object allocation. We won't distinguish between types. >> > Only a single counter (per device). >> > >> >> In that case ucontext deserve a additional count. Because that is handful in >> range of 256 to 1K. >> If we give absolute consolidated number as 2000, one container will allocate all >> the doorbell uctx and no other container can run. >> Percentage works for this particular case. >> > > 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. Would indirection table also fall in this category? > 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. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html