From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927B4C43460 for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 16:13:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1032361406 for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 16:13:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1032361406 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ffwll.ch Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D65E6E3B2; Fri, 7 May 2021 16:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4FFE6E3B2 for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 16:13:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id l18-20020a1ced120000b029014c1adff1edso7471227wmh.4 for ; Fri, 07 May 2021 09:13:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ffwll.ch; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=FUW3a1jiCrK1Tn1N2NaYa8UBta2jEUU1Vka07ztzquU=; b=g4WfSpbdEojj9t6SkLNDXVSN8j4goD0Y1aN3I2Imymf6okgQfMLTQILeVaPIdzjjyy rc5FgeK00c/1rW3oWDgK0rM6pqpYTXnlKBGM3lzF7JRr0lP4t2KJLEo8glyppHIXAZg5 OlL+tz1UDPB06Xitnob+iK9BxCUL/sEKyEcCU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=FUW3a1jiCrK1Tn1N2NaYa8UBta2jEUU1Vka07ztzquU=; b=PUZ1HuA+pja1wmM1OIryddqZMLXTbKMBx3zE0DMG/8e9FsHANDGsFgkyzeTiJE22hi wPAZ3EqIimXMtL3rslwbfhkV90I8gZ8sVVm8DwLYjvQLjCZKMy8z/DmGKJ0yrEIvmla3 k1q+7ysFNKaBiefLLqMny5Ao00OaCo3Zhm0gtb9r2wg8dxoyaDmpk874wwSX/XLYWlld dPo//BSeHdKDmxDeMLN9cuOvBdwCapAvXU/ab1elpv+g8ioPWYPzFgRJEl677IGmaZZw Vr0i9gzaDtjxldgtuwt+IxG2TlswNoz6esc1PhW0+hDBoaxwJm1yLJHNWAUYbFMoNwY/ tu2A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Kcl7/73xaP/vAoGWoVegCihI6yIE3pQap41tAA8WlOWTnlHoB qzm0aYyOSIp6i1agSnLiYRmNfg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw2OfJqYx5ZIercYhhRlQ/JLOdMXNxUQ/ODYD+AnW2ThepPqF7/0dUanJkd40jtM214KjqXYQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2154:: with SMTP id v20mr10712151wml.86.1620404030299; Fri, 07 May 2021 09:13:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phenom.ffwll.local ([2a02:168:57f4:0:efd0:b9e5:5ae6:c2fa]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l66sm7286905wmf.20.2021.05.07.09.13.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 07 May 2021 09:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 18:13:47 +0200 From: Daniel Vetter To: Kenny Ho Subject: Re: [RFC] Add BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_IOCTL Message-ID: References: <20201103232805.6uq4zg3gdvw2iiki@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux phenom 5.10.32scarlett+ X-BeenThere: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Direct Rendering Infrastructure - Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Song Liu , Andrii Nakryiko , DRI Development , Daniel Borkmann , Kenny Ho , "open list:CONTROL GROUP \(CGROUP\)" , Brian Welty , John Fastabend , Alexei Starovoitov , amd-gfx list , Martin KaFai Lau , Linux-Fsdevel , Alexander Viro , Network Development , KP Singh , Yonghong Song , bpf , Alexei Starovoitov , Alex Deucher Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 11:33:46AM -0400, Kenny Ho wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 4:59 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > Hm I missed that. I feel like time-sliced-of-a-whole gpu is the easier gpu > > cgroups controler to get started, since it's much closer to other cgroups > > that control bandwidth of some kind. Whether it's i/o bandwidth or compute > > bandwidht is kinda a wash. > sriov/time-sliced-of-a-whole gpu does not really need a cgroup > interface since each slice appears as a stand alone device. This is > already in production (not using cgroup) with users. The cgroup > proposal has always been parallel to that in many sense: 1) spatial > partitioning as an independent but equally valid use case as time > sharing, 2) sub-device resource control as opposed to full device > control motivated by the workload characterization paper. It was > never about time vs space in terms of use cases but having new API for > users to be able to do spatial subdevice partitioning. > > > CU mask feels a lot more like an isolation/guaranteed forward progress > > kind of thing, and I suspect that's always going to be a lot more gpu hw > > specific than anything we can reasonably put into a general cgroups > > controller. > The first half is correct but I disagree with the conclusion. The > analogy I would use is multi-core CPU. The capability of individual > CPU cores, core count and core arrangement may be hw specific but > there are general interfaces to support selection of these cores. CU > mask may be hw specific but spatial partitioning as an idea is not. > Most gpu vendors have the concept of sub-device compute units (EU, SE, > etc.); OpenCL has the concept of subdevice in the language. I don't > see any obstacle for vendors to implement spatial partitioning just > like many CPU vendors support the idea of multi-core. > > > Also for the time slice cgroups thing, can you pls give me pointers to > > these old patches that had it, and how it's done? I very obviously missed > > that part. > I think you misunderstood what I wrote earlier. The original proposal > was about spatial partitioning of subdevice resources not time sharing > using cgroup (since time sharing is already supported elsewhere.) Well SRIOV time-sharing is for virtualization. cgroups is for containerization, which is just virtualization but with less overhead and more security bugs. More or less. So either I get things still wrong, or we'll get time-sharing for virtualization, and partitioning of CU for containerization. That doesn't make that much sense to me. Since time-sharing is the first thing that's done for virtualization I think it's probably also the most reasonable to start with for containers. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch