Hi Tejun, On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 2:17 PM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I have to agree with Daniel here. My apologies if I weren't clear > enough. Here's one interface I can think of: > > * compute weight: The same format as io.weight. Proportional control > of gpu compute. > > * memory low: Please see how the system memory.low behaves. For gpus, > it'll need per-device entries. > > Note that for both, there one number to configure and conceptually > it's pretty clear to everybody what that number means, which is not to > say that it's clear to implement but it's much better to deal with > that on this side of the interface than the other. Can you elaborate, per your understanding, how the lgpu weight attribute differ from the io.weight you suggested? Is it merely a formatting/naming issue or is it the implementation details that you find troubling? From my perspective, the weight attribute implements as you suggested back in RFCv4 (proportional control on top of a unit - either physical or time unit.) Perhaps more explicit questions would help me understand what you mean. If I remove the 'list' and 'count' attributes leaving just weight, is that satisfactory? Are you saying the idea of affinity or named-resource is banned from cgroup entirely (even though it exists in the form of cpuset already and users are interested in having such options [i.e. userspace OpenCL] when needed?) To be clear, I am not saying no proportional control. I am saying give the user the options, which is what has been implemented. > cc'ing Johannes. Do you have anything on mind regarding how gpu memory > configuration should look like? e.g. should it go w/ weights rather > than absoulte units (I don't think so given that it'll most likely > need limits at some point too but still and there are benefits from > staying consistent with system memory). > > Also, a rather trivial high level question. Is drm a good controller > name given that other controller names are like cpu, memory, io? There was a discussion about naming early in the RFC (I believe RFCv2), the consensuses then was to use drmcg to align with the drm subsystem. I have no problem renaming it to gpucg or something similar if that is the last thing that's blocking acceptance. For now, I would like to get some clarity on the implementation before having more code churn. Regards, Kenny > Thanks. > > -- > tejun
