On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 03:28:40PM -0500, Kenny Ho wrote: > Can you elaborate, per your understanding, how the lgpu weight > attribute differ from the io.weight you suggested? Is it merely a Oh, it's the non-weight part which is problematic. > 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 At least from interface pov, yes, although I think it should be clear what the weight controls. > 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. We can get there if we *really* have to but not from the get-go but I'd rather avoid affinities if at all possible. Thanks. -- tejun
