Am 16.05.19 um 16:03 schrieb Kenny Ho:
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
Yeah, that is certainly a possibility.
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.
Well I would try to avoid using the minor and at least look for
alternatives. E.g. what does udev uses to identify the devices for
example? And IIRC we have something like a "device-name" in the kernel
as well (what's printed in the logs).
The minimum we need to do is get away from the minor=linenum approach,
cause as Daniel pointed out the minor allocation is quite a mess and not
necessary contiguous.
Regards,
Christian.
Regards,
Kenny
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
