Hi Doug, I am still waiting for Leon to provide his comments if any on rdma cgroup. >From other email context, he was on vacation last week. While we wait for his comments, I wanted to know your view of this patchset in 4.9 merge window. To summarize the discussion that happened in two threads. [1] Ack by Tejun, asking for review from rdma list [2] quick review by Christoph on patch-v11 (patch 12 has only typo corrections) [3] Christoph's ack on architecture of rdma cgroup and fitting it with ABI [4] My response on Matan's query on RSS indirection table [5] Response from Intel on their driver support for Matan's query [6] Christoph's point on architecture, which we are following in new ABI and current ABI I have reviewed recent patch [7] from Matan where I see IB verbs objects are still handled through common path as suggested by Christoph. I do not see any issues with rdma cgroup patchset other than it requires rebase. Am I missing something? Can you please help me - What would be required to merge it to 4.9? [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/31/494 [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/25/146 [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/10/175 [4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/14/221 [5] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/19/571 [6] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg40337.html [7] email subject: [RFC ABI V4 0/7] SG-based RDMA ABI Proposal Regards, Parav Pandit On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Tejun, > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hello, Parav. >> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:13:38AM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote: >>> We have completed review from Tejun, Christoph. >>> HFI driver folks also provided feedback for Intel drivers. >>> Matan's also doesn't have any more comments. >>> >>> If possible, if you can also review, it will be helpful. >>> >>> I have some more changes unrelated to cgroup in same files in both the git tree. >>> Pushing them now either results into merge conflict later on for >>> Doug/Tejun, or requires rebase and resending patch. >>> If you can review, we can avoid such rework. >> >> My impression of the thread was that there doesn't seem to be enough >> of consensus around how rdma resources should be defined. Is that >> part agreed upon now? >> > > We ended up discussing few points on different thread [1]. > > There was confusion on how some non-rdma/non-IB drivers would work > with rdma cgroup from Matan. > Christoph explained how they don't fit in the rdma subsystem and > therefore its not prime target to addess. > Intel driver maintainer Denny also acknowledged same on [2]. > IB compliant drivers of Intel support rdma cgroup as explained in [2]. > With that usnic and Intel psm drivers falls out of rdma cgroup support > as they don't fit very well in the verbs definition. > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg40340.html > [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg40717.html > > I will wait for Leon's review comments if he has different view on architecture. > Back in April when I met face-to-face to Leon and Haggai, Leon was in > support to have kernel defined the rdma resources as suggested by > Christoph and Tejun instead of IB/RDMA subsystem. > I will wait for his comments if his views have changed with new uAPI > taking shape. -- 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
