> From: Parav Pandit [mailto:pandit.parav@xxxxxxxxx] > > > > Hmm.. > > I guess that you are right. > > > > So we can add another count for "HCA handles", > I prefer this. This keeps it vendor agnostic and clean if we don't go percentage > route. OK; let's do it. > Would indirection table also fall in this category? > No. It's just another HCA resource... > > or alternatively, each provider will restrict the number of handles > > per device to a reasonable small number (which won't be treated as one of the > "HCA resources"). > This would require vendor drivers to get the understanding of cgroup object > and pid and that breaks the modular approach. I like to avoid this. > > > Typically, a process shouldn't need to open more than a single handle... > Right. well behaved application won't do multiple handles. ��.n��������+%������w��{.n������.����n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
