Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] cgroup support for GPU devices

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> Count us (Mellanox) too, our RDMA devices are exposing special and
> limited in size device memory to the users and we would like to provide
> an option to use cgroup to control its exposure.
Doesn't RDMA already has a separate cgroup?  Why not implement it there?


> > and with future work, we could extend to:
> > *  track and control share of GPU time (reuse of cpu/cpuacct)
> > *  apply mask of allowed execution engines (reuse of cpusets)
> >
> > Instead of introducing a new cgroup subsystem for GPU devices, a new
> > framework is proposed to allow devices to register with existing cgroup
> > controllers, which creates per-device cgroup_subsys_state within the
> > cgroup.  This gives device drivers their own private cgroup controls
> > (such as memory limits or other parameters) to be applied to device
> > resources instead of host system resources.
> > Device drivers (GPU or other) are then able to reuse the existing cgroup
> > controls, instead of inventing similar ones.
> >
> > Per-device controls would be exposed in cgroup filesystem as:
> >     mount/<cgroup_name>/<subsys_name>.devices/<dev_name>/<subsys_files>
> > such as (for example):
> >     mount/<cgroup_name>/memory.devices/<dev_name>/memory.max
> >     mount/<cgroup_name>/memory.devices/<dev_name>/memory.current
> >     mount/<cgroup_name>/cpu.devices/<dev_name>/cpu.stat
> >     mount/<cgroup_name>/cpu.devices/<dev_name>/cpu.weight
> >
> > The drm/i915 patch in this series is based on top of other RFC work [1]
> > for i915 device memory support.
> >
> > AMD [2] and Intel [3] have proposed related work in this area within the
> > last few years, listed below as reference.  This new RFC reuses existing
> > cgroup controllers and takes a different approach than prior work.
> >
> > Finally, some potential discussion points for this series:
> > * merge proposed <subsys_name>.devices into a single devices directory?
> > * allow devices to have multiple registrations for subsets of resources?
> > * document a 'common charging policy' for device drivers to follow?
> >
> > [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/56683/
> > [2] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2018-November/197106.html
> > [3] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2018-January/153156.html
> >
> >
> > Brian Welty (5):
> >   cgroup: Add cgroup_subsys per-device registration framework
> >   cgroup: Change kernfs_node for directories to store
> >     cgroup_subsys_state
> >   memcg: Add per-device support to memory cgroup subsystem
> >   drm: Add memory cgroup registration and DRIVER_CGROUPS feature bit
> >   drm/i915: Use memory cgroup for enforcing device memory limit
> >
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c                  |  12 +
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c                  |   7 +
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c            |   2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_memory_region.c |  24 +-
> >  include/drm/drm_device.h                   |   3 +
> >  include/drm/drm_drv.h                      |   8 +
> >  include/drm/drm_gem.h                      |  11 +
> >  include/linux/cgroup-defs.h                |  28 ++
> >  include/linux/cgroup.h                     |   3 +
> >  include/linux/memcontrol.h                 |  10 +
> >  kernel/cgroup/cgroup-v1.c                  |  10 +-
> >  kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c                     | 310 ++++++++++++++++++---
> >  mm/memcontrol.c                            | 183 +++++++++++-
> >  13 files changed, 552 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.21.0
> >
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux