Re: [PATCH 09/11] drm, cgroup: Introduce lgpu as DRM cgroup resource

From: Kenny Ho <y2kenny@gmail.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: juan.zuniga-anaya@amd.com, "Kenny Ho" <Kenny.Ho@amd.com>,
	"Kuehling, Felix" <felix.kuehling@amd.com>,
	jsparks@cray.com, nirmoy.das@amd.com,
	"Maling list - DRI developers" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	lkaplan@cray.com, "Greathouse,
	Joseph" <joseph.greathouse@amd.com>,
	"amd-gfx mailing list" <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Jason Ekstrand" <jason@jlekstrand.net>,
	"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	"Alex Deucher" <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	damon.mcdougall@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] drm, cgroup: Introduce lgpu as DRM cgroup resource
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:28:40 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOWid-dA2Ad-FTZDDLOs4pperYbsru9cknSuXo_2ajpPbQH0Xg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200214191754.GA218629@mtj.thefacebook.com>

Hi Tejun,

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 2:17 PM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Daniel here. My apologies if I weren't clear
> enough. Here's one interface I can think of:
>
>  * compute weight: The same format as io.weight. Proportional control
>    of gpu compute.
>
>  * memory low: Please see how the system memory.low behaves. For gpus,
>    it'll need per-device entries.
>
> Note that for both, there one number to configure and conceptually
> it's pretty clear to everybody what that number means, which is not to
> say that it's clear to implement but it's much better to deal with
> that on this side of the interface than the other.

Can you elaborate, per your understanding, how the lgpu weight
attribute differ from the io.weight you suggested?  Is it merely a
formatting/naming issue or is it the implementation details that you
find troubling?  From my perspective, the weight attribute implements
as you suggested back in RFCv4 (proportional control on top of a unit
- either physical or time unit.)

Perhaps more explicit questions would help me understand what you
mean. If I remove the 'list' and 'count' attributes leaving just
weight, is that satisfactory?  Are you saying the idea of affinity or
named-resource is banned from cgroup entirely (even though it exists
in the form of cpuset already and users are interested in having such
options [i.e. userspace OpenCL] when needed?)

To be clear, I am not saying no proportional control.  I am saying
give the user the options, which is what has been implemented.

> cc'ing Johannes. Do you have anything on mind regarding how gpu memory
> configuration should look like? e.g. should it go w/ weights rather
> than absoulte units (I don't think so given that it'll most likely
> need limits at some point too but still and there are benefits from
> staying consistent with system memory).
>
> Also, a rather trivial high level question. Is drm a good controller
> name given that other controller names are like cpu, memory, io?

There was a discussion about naming early in the RFC (I believe
RFCv2), the consensuses then was to use drmcg to align with the drm
subsystem.  I have no problem renaming it to gpucg  or something
similar if that is the last thing that's blocking acceptance.  For
now, I would like to get some clarity on the implementation before
having more code churn.

Regards,
Kenny

> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel