From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757233AbcHXW4x (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:56:53 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f65.google.com ([209.85.215.65]:34864 "EHLO mail-lf0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753327AbcHXW4g (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:56:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1471869231-15576-4-git-send-email-pandit.parav@gmail.com> References: <1471869231-15576-1-git-send-email-pandit.parav@gmail.com> <1471869231-15576-4-git-send-email-pandit.parav@gmail.com> From: Rami Rosen Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 01:55:37 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCHv11 3/3] rdmacg: Added documentation for rdmacg To: Parav Pandit Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, Li Zefan , hannes@cmpxchg.org, dledford@redhat.com, liranl@mellanox.com, sean.hefty@intel.com, jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, haggaie@mellanox.com, corbet@lwn.net, james.l.morris@oracle.com, serge@hallyn.com, Or Gerlitz , matanb@mellanox.com, Andrew Morton , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, > +Whenever RDMA resource charing occurs, owner rdma cgroup is returned to Should be: charging instead of charing > +(b) Query resource limit: > +cat /sys/fs/cgroup/rdma/2/rdma.max > +#Output: > +mlx4_0 uctx=max pd=max ah=2 mr=100 mw=max cq=max srq=max qp=10 flow=max > +ocrdma1 uctx=1 pd=5 ah=1 mr=10 cq=10 srq=max qp=20 flow=max flow=max Is this really so: double"flow=max" at the end of the ocrdma1 line? (flow=max flow=max) > +5-4. RDMA > + > +The "rdma" controller regulates the distribution and accounting of > +of RDMA resources. "of of" should be only a single "of" > + mlx4_1 uctx=1 ah=0 pd=1 cq=4 qp=4 mr=100 srq=0 flow=10 > + ocrdma1 uctx=2 pd=2 ah=2 mr=20 mw=max cq=1 srq=1 qp=10 flow=10 Seems to be inconsistency here: in the first line you have qp=4 *before* srq=0, but in the second line you have qp=10 *after* srq=1. Keep on the good work! Regards, Rami Rosen