> From: Parav Pandit [mailto:pandit.parav@xxxxxxxxx] > > > > 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). > Comment from Leon about his discussion with Matan, Tejun, Christoph says > opposite of this for user level configuration. > May be I am missing something. > > > The reasons are: > > - Some HCAs can have a huge amount of resources (millions of objects), of > which even a small percentage may consume a considerable amount of kernel > memory. > > - We follow the same notion as FD limits, which accounts for numerous > > resource types that consume file objects in the kernel (files, pipes, > > sockets) > > - The namespaces for RDMA resources are large (usually 24 bits). So > > even large resource counts won't come nowhere close in depleting the > > namespace. (Compare that to the mere 64K socket port space...) > > - The metric measures the actual application usage of resources, rather than > proportional to the resources of a given HCA adapter. > > - We can continue to use the cgroup mechanism for charging (just as in > > the original proposal) > > > > I have discussed this matter with Doug and Matan, and it seems like this is the > right direction. > > --Liran > > ��.n��������+%������w��{.n������.����n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
