Hello, Parav. On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:13:59AM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote: > > My uneducated suspicion is that the abstraction is just not developed > > enough. It should be possible to virtualize these resources through, > > most likely, time-sharing to the level where userland simply says "I > > want this chunk transferred there" and OS schedules the transfer > > prioritizing competing requests. > > Tejun, > That is such a perfect abstraction to have at OS level, but not sure > how much close it can be to bare metal RDMA it can be. > I have started discussion on that front as well as part of other > thread, but its certainly long way to go. > Most want to enjoy the performance benefit of the bare metal > interfaces it provides. Yeah, sure, I'm not trying to say that rdma needs or should do that. > Such abstraction that you mentioned, exists, the only difference is > instead of its OS as central entity, its the higher level libraries, > drivers and hw together does it today for the applications. But more that having resource control in the OS and actual arbitration higher up in the stack isn't likely to lead to an effective resource distribution scheme. > > You kinda have to decide that upfront cuz it gets baked into the > > interface. > > Well, all the interfaces are not yet defined. Except the test and I meant the cgroup interface. > benchmark utilities, real world applications wouldn't really bother > much about which device are they are going through. Weights can work fine across multiple devices. Hard limits don't. It just doesn't make any sense. Unless you can exclude multiple device scenarios, you'll have to implement per-device limits. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
