On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 3:25 AM Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 16.05.19 um 09:16 schrieb Koenig, Christian: > > Am 16.05.19 um 04:29 schrieb Kenny Ho: > >> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:26 PM Welty, Brian <brian.welty@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On 5/9/2019 2:04 PM, Kenny Ho wrote: > >>>> Each file is multi-lined with one entry/line per drm device. > >>> Multi-line is correct for multiple devices, but I believe you need > >>> to use a KEY to denote device for both your set and get routines. > >>> I didn't see your set functions reading a key, or the get functions > >>> printing the key in output. > >>> cgroups-v2 conventions mention using KEY of major:minor, but I think > >>> you can use drm_minor as key? > >> Given this controller is specific to the drm kernel subsystem which > >> uses minor to identify drm device, > > Wait a second, using the DRM minor is a good idea in the first place. > Well that should have read "is not a good idea".. > > I have a test system with a Vega10 and a Vega20. Which device gets which > minor is not stable, but rather defined by the scan order of the PCIe bus. > > Normally the scan order is always the same, but adding or removing > devices or delaying things just a little bit during init is enough to > change this. > > We need something like the Linux sysfs location or similar to have a > stable implementation. I get that, which is why I don't use minor to identify cards in user space apps I wrote: https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/k8s-device-plugin/blob/c2659c9d1d0713cad36fb5256681125121e6e32f/internal/pkg/amdgpu/amdgpu.go#L85 But within the kernel, I think my use of minor is consistent with the rest of the drm subsystem. I hope I don't need to reform the way the drm subsystem use minor in order to introduce a cgroup controller. Regards, Kenny _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
