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=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 88B77C433ED for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 17:04:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5382161463 for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 17:04:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236821AbhEGRFy (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2021 13:05:54 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34760 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229492AbhEGRFx (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2021 13:05:53 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BCC3C061574; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id h4so13765696lfv.0; Fri, 07 May 2021 10:04:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=As0+QF4TLvCwMjWlGqhQacwhIi2kfiM2nw4uGB7p4N8=; b=XaS8GacFeLZ9LdipAnAd9lmHMU5Bram4sJAXmI5tjXjuePToDyszeoER9rBD1jP5FD G/iFhdBDQYXfUfAdNRXVue+92PkBxExlxzlSXIbYo5gqqtqGDsjTtDaFXVQqCrSIAbbV f3NeLSg8WA1QDhql50+sz3vsfJEUQNRZsEEIfJKcSV6tjmaovZZhN60fod42kmSrf9Au LqzSdMGedlwI88yfdk95tBQIGuo5dRYgbseIbv7i0Ndt+EbBOBQEgnzKpzHzY5BV6NYP WttdkufC4r8Fn7J9E+XuKfSdQBYuu8smQs6s5t4/CuGKQyuOjhmqLJa9g5rtp8UaDJrJ JeZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=As0+QF4TLvCwMjWlGqhQacwhIi2kfiM2nw4uGB7p4N8=; b=VxKWhT7hTcehdIawdjHsjksmwKHybNu+kfxLzhy2LuyuktpsYPGRxGNvzNx7obOaaG tjdtVd2NVS7T3L4vgbr4AasjtNJyjoy1KKUFFV49Uq1DeBqoBa4CDcnhI2yF4uhsIDyf Sz/1BYanamzMWYgblnJega0mgPrgg27+CK4QDkZV2PvC0r1jJRcOwHvWcW1XYwlF1RmV r6otACSbOElMF5GHQdT7+Vu9IDEoFZeBATuZxHuz7Pc50luTPSyFDp3mxHhMafZyxGnX gdQeAlPiICkF/pSo5mvwYeCv0r+agjMvs8E3V9Y+Kp8iyckdJBN/fLqTPpsViBJhlMNr KfhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533xINdyl2rLs1034YX5pisnTMQt1W6zCs6HVdByYQ28tg+j9K4+ rpRW77X4LuyA+IIUG6MUvga6MKahPfUxl7pmHcQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyNW4Va1Nx97/p0bkdWKZm1kMh8BbHdHom7nIdyBuEQj8avc+yZs0hyZEoSNPZlzEZ4Hw9AXU9VHivTMhxw+dc= X-Received: by 2002:a19:5508:: with SMTP id n8mr7115859lfe.542.1620407091091; Fri, 07 May 2021 10:04:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Kenny Ho Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 13:04:39 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] Add BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_IOCTL To: Daniel Vetter Cc: Alex Deucher , 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 , Dave Airlie , Alexei Starovoitov , Alex Deucher Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 12:54 PM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > SRIOV is kinda by design vendor specific. You set up the VF endpoint, it > shows up, it's all hw+fw magic. Nothing for cgroups to manage here at all. Right, so in theory you just use the device cgroup with the VF endpoints. > All I meant is that for the container/cgroups world starting out with > time-sharing feels like the best fit, least because your SRIOV designers > also seem to think that's the best first cut for cloud-y computing. > Whether it's virtualized or containerized is a distinction that's getting > ever more blurry, with virtualization become a lot more dynamic and > container runtimes als possibly using hw virtualization underneath. I disagree. By the same logic, the existence of CU mask would imply it being the preferred way for sub-device control per process. Kenny