Thread (31 messages) 31 messages, 6 authors, 2021-05-11

Re: [RFC] Add BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_IOCTL

From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-05-07 20:59:20
Also in: amd-gfx, bpf, dri-devel, linux-fsdevel, netdev

Hello,

On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 03:55:39PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
The problem is temporal partitioning on GPUs is much harder to enforce
unless you have a special case like SR-IOV.  Spatial partitioning, on
AMD GPUs at least, is widely available and easily enforced.  What is
the point of implementing temporal style cgroups if no one can enforce
it effectively?
So, if generic fine-grained partitioning can't be implemented, the right
thing to do is stopping pushing for full-blown cgroup interface for it. The
hardware simply isn't capable of being managed in a way which allows generic
fine-grained hierarchical scheduling and there's no point in bloating the
interface with half baked hardware dependent features.

This isn't to say that there's no way to support them, but what have been
being proposed is way too generic and ambitious in terms of interface while
being poorly developed on the internal abstraction and mechanism front. If
the hardware can't do generic, either implement the barest minimum interface
(e.g. be a part of misc controller) or go driver-specific - the feature is
hardware specific anyway. I've repeated this multiple times in these
discussions now but it'd be really helpful to try to minimize the interace
while concentrating more on internal abstractions and actual control
mechanisms.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help