Quoting Kasiviswanathan, Harish (2018-11-26 22:59:30) > Thanks Tejun,Eric and Christian for your replies. > > We want GPUs resource management to work seamlessly with containers and container orchestration. With the Intel / bpf based approach this is not possible. > > From your response we gather the following. GPU resources need to be abstracted. We will send a new proposal in same vein. Our current thinking is to start with a single abstracted resource and build a framework that can be expanded to include additional resources. We plan to start with “GPU cores”. We believe all GPUs have some concept of cores or compute unit. I think a more abstract property "% of GPU (processing power)" might be a more universal approach. One can then implement that through subdividing the resources or timeslicing them, depending on the GPU topology. Leasing 1/8th, 1/4th or 1/2 of the GPU would probably be the most applicable to cloud provider usecases, too. At least that's what I see done for the CPUs today. That combined with the "GPU memory usable" property should be a good starting point to start subdividing the GPU resources for multiple users. Regards, Joonas > > Your feedback is highly appreciated. > > Best Regards, > Harish > > > > From: amd-gfx <amd-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 5:30 PM > To: Ho, Kenny > Cc: cgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; y2kenny@xxxxxxxxx; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] cgroup: Add mechanism to register vendor specific DRM devices > > > Hello, > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:21:14PM +0000, Ho, Kenny wrote: > > By this reply, are you suggesting that vendor specific resources > > will never be acceptable to be managed under cgroup? Let say a user > > I wouldn't say never but whatever which gets included as a cgroup > controller should have clearly defined resource abstractions and the > control schemes around them including support for delegation. AFAICS, > gpu side still seems to have a long way to go (and it's not clear > whether that's somewhere it will or needs to end up). > > > want to have similar functionality as what cgroup is offering but to > > manage vendor specific resources, what would you suggest as a > > solution? When you say keeping vendor specific resource regulation > > inside drm or specific drivers, do you mean we should replicate the > > cgroup infrastructure there or do you mean either drm or specific > > driver should query existing hierarchy (such as device or perhaps > > cpu) for the process organization information? > > > > To put the questions in more concrete terms, let say a user wants to > > expose certain part of a gpu to a particular cgroup similar to the > > way selective cpu cores are exposed to a cgroup via cpuset, how > > should we go about enabling such functionality? > > Do what the intel driver or bpf is doing? It's not difficult to hook > into cgroup for identification purposes. > > Thanks. > > -- > tejun > _______________________________________________ > amd-gfx mailing list > amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx > > > amd-gfx Info Page - freedesktop.org > lists.freedesktop.org > To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the amd-gfx Archives.. Using amd-gfx: To post a message to all the list members, send email to amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. You can subscribe to the list, or change your existing subscription, in the sections below. > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
