Re: [RFC] Add BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_IOCTL
From: Kenny Ho <hidden>
Date: 2021-05-07 02:06:49
Also in:
amd-gfx, bpf, dri-devel, linux-fsdevel, netdev
From: Kenny Ho <hidden>
Date: 2021-05-07 02:06:49
Also in:
amd-gfx, bpf, dri-devel, linux-fsdevel, netdev
Sorry for the late reply (I have been working on other stuff.) On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 8:49 AM Daniel Vetter [off-list ref] wrote:
So I agree that on one side CU mask can be used for low-level quality of service guarantees (like the CLOS cache stuff on intel cpus as an example), and that's going to be rather hw specific no matter what. But my understanding of AMD's plans here is that CU mask is the only thing you'll have to partition gpu usage in a multi-tenant environment - whether that's cloud or also whether that's containing apps to make sure the compositor can still draw the desktop (except for fullscreen ofc) doesn't really matter I think.
This is not correct. Even in the original cgroup proposal, it supports both mask and count as a way to define unit(s) of sub-device. For AMD, we already have SRIOV that supports GPU partitioning in a time-sliced-of-a-whole-GPU fashion. Kenny