On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Haggai Eran <haggaie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/09/2015 13:18, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>> >
>>>> >> + * RDMA resource limits are hierarchical, so the highest configured limit of
>>>> >> + * the hierarchy is enforced. Allowing resource limit configuration to default
>>>> >> + * cgroup allows fair share to kernel space ULPs as well.
>>> > In what way is the highest configured limit of the hierarchy enforced? I
>>> > would expect all the limits along the hierarchy to be enforced.
>>> >
>> In hierarchy, of say 3 cgroups, the smallest limit of the cgroup is applied.
>>
>> Lets take example to clarify.
>> Say cg_A, cg_B, cg_C
>> Role name limit
>> Parent cg_A 100
>> Child_level1 cg_B (child of cg_A) 20
>> Child_level2: cg_C (child of cg_B) 50
>>
>> If the process allocating rdma resource belongs to cg_C, limit lowest
>> limit in the hierarchy is applied during charge() stage.
>> If cg_A limit happens to be 10, since 10 is lowest, its limit would be
>> applicable as you expected.
>
> Looking at the code, the usage in every level is charged. This is what I
> would expect. I just think the comment is a bit misleading.
>
>>>> +int devcgroup_rdma_get_max_resource(struct seq_file *sf, void *v)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct dev_cgroup *dev_cg = css_to_devcgroup(seq_css(sf));
>>>> + int type = seq_cft(sf)->private;
>>>> + u32 usage;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (dev_cg->rdma.tracker[type].limit == DEVCG_RDMA_MAX_RESOURCES) {
>>>> + seq_printf(sf, "%s\n", DEVCG_RDMA_MAX_RESOURCE_STR);
>>> I'm not sure hiding the actual number is good, especially in the
>>> show_usage case.
>>
>> This is similar to following other controller same as newly added PID
>> subsystem in showing max limit.
>
> Okay.
>
>>>> +void devcgroup_rdma_uncharge_resource(struct ib_ucontext *ucontext,
>>>> + enum devcgroup_rdma_rt type, int num)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct dev_cgroup *dev_cg, *p;
>>>> + struct task_struct *ctx_task;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!num)
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* get cgroup of ib_ucontext it belong to, to uncharge
>>>> + * so that when its called from any worker tasks or any
>>>> + * other tasks to which this resource doesn't belong to,
>>>> + * it can be uncharged correctly.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (ucontext)
>>>> + ctx_task = get_pid_task(ucontext->tgid, PIDTYPE_PID);
>>>> + else
>>>> + ctx_task = current;
>>>> + dev_cg = task_devcgroup(ctx_task);
>>>> +
>>>> + spin_lock(&ctx_task->rdma_res_counter->lock);
>>> Don't you need an rcu read lock and rcu_dereference to access
>>> rdma_res_counter?
>>
>> I believe, its not required because when uncharge() is happening, it
>> can happen only from 3 contexts.
>> (a) from the caller task context, who has made allocation call, so no
>> synchronizing needed.
>> (b) from the dealloc resource context, again this is from the same
>> task context which allocated, it so this is single threaded, no need
>> to syncronize.
> I don't think it is true. You can access uverbs from multiple threads.
Yes, thats right. Though I design counter structure allocation on per
task basis for individual thread access, I totally missed out ucontext
sharing among threads. I replied in other thread to make counters
during charge, uncharge to atomic to cover that case.
Therefore I need rcu lock and deference as well.
> What may help your case here I think is the fact that only when the last
> ucontext is released you can change the rdma_res_counter field, and
> ucontext release takes the ib_uverbs_file->mutex.
>
> Still, I think it would be best to use rcu_dereference(), if only for
> documentation and sparse.
yes.
>
>> (c) from the fput() context when process is terminated abruptly or as
>> part of differed cleanup, when this is happening there cannot be
>> allocator task anyway.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
