From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551B2C433EF for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 20:35:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230203AbiDUUhw (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:37:52 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50576 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1392392AbiDUUhe (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:37:34 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x62c.google.com (mail-pl1-x62c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9CB64AE37; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id d15so6275638pll.10; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:34:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=G4IR1S+2VnwD7ZwrNOGPf8P9V36/go7S4VZyJGUy/Eg=; b=BeBm2eCz8cCv5EEwO12oLBJh46F9ARV+D9fbWF0OpKzAlZ2f9Cqn1mlMW0Q+hqt1si SNwqiVkEcfOlrK5XuSyNB6WwgLvoYWjzyzSB1Cj+1QyZZUBhq5r48tYzxK5JC52cCC3/ ajIkbwxhpssuY+ODp6aFA+bKiKHDBWWX2Gp9I/8LIsjU3iPgPRL9WQSjqdQZWqm5OWhs IpBqsF2uHR/6eeapencgOESAi9gjjtGdJdnIUFyFQWpxgP0oDVygH0jscEMiHW97DGoL NBMS+PaSdFRiQn0bVqbDm6/3e2ALxpSdOWopem8ZJWwzLhpRDDKjjzHgoYSKBw1koicA schg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=G4IR1S+2VnwD7ZwrNOGPf8P9V36/go7S4VZyJGUy/Eg=; b=In2kEV/Ev+wyopVUQG4vSarAaeE3bNmaX9+ardSo7aCQ+trJ/2azamGwjLE8qusb/b 5o0w0Br+VqAnKI/jTIeyrLaX6RXO0N6lHZFWBP5n06wr+WIz70NQXkdfgnZMFnt/egGV 7/4t2jKEdAzvKDa6jgBvisuwY/AUZ6NcWEempAgB31JcYKZ+j70PDsLpDrZcTlA4jE5e 15gg4R6TuT3VeCG9b/lCAWbfopy2DOp1dYJwp8S7X6VZtFk9jQ1zvlsOSXS3Dp6hpqbN 36nKi5OXS7vc8FPblCELpUx/A6MQE0TOxoe9GkUhuxHyAKNfo7vvc4QlnvsIioUt6Xf5 wD8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530je/JDZiZmy+vb0Z0GGeUUh8x3FF+AamA56nJ4JxFwtaLSSlD6 FIHHX5wqzIIKGXLx2i4ObIM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxtMvhIb2TjDzKuAYMD44ZqmSeED73RT8ANu1mxwafrsnuy9aQ+rPJG550seXXJi/jenUB82w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ab96:b0:159:1ff:4ea0 with SMTP id f22-20020a170902ab9600b0015901ff4ea0mr1272731plr.60.1650573283231; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c090:400::5:2c86]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z7-20020a056a00240700b004e1cde37bc1sm25720846pfh.84.2022.04.21.13.34.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:34:41 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: "T.J. Mercier" Cc: daniel@ffwll.ch, Maarten Lankhorst , Maxime Ripard , Thomas Zimmermann , David Airlie , Jonathan Corbet , hridya@google.com, christian.koenig@amd.com, jstultz@google.com, tkjos@android.com, cmllamas@google.com, surenb@google.com, kaleshsingh@google.com, Kenny.Ho@amd.com, mkoutny@suse.com, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, kernel-team@android.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC v5 1/6] gpu: rfc: Proposal for a GPU cgroup controller Message-ID: References: <20220420235228.2767816-1-tjmercier@google.com> <20220420235228.2767816-2-tjmercier@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220420235228.2767816-2-tjmercier@google.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 11:52:19PM +0000, T.J. Mercier wrote: > From: Hridya Valsaraju > > This patch adds a proposal for a new GPU cgroup controller for > accounting/limiting GPU and GPU-related memory allocations. > The proposed controller is based on the DRM cgroup controller[1] and > follows the design of the RDMA cgroup controller. > > The new cgroup controller would: > * Allow setting per-device limits on the total size of buffers > allocated by device within a cgroup. > * Expose a per-device/allocator breakdown of the buffers charged to a > cgroup. > > The prototype in the following patches is only for memory accounting > using the GPU cgroup controller and does not implement limit setting. > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/amd-gfx/20210126214626.16260-1-brian.welty@intel.com/ > > Signed-off-by: Hridya Valsaraju > Signed-off-by: T.J. Mercier Looks straight-forward enough from cgroup side. Are gpu folks generally happy? David, Daniel, Kenny, what are your thoughts? > Documentation/gpu/rfc/gpu-cgroup.rst | 190 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Can you fold the important part into cgroup-v2.rst and maybe make the rest code comments if necessary? Thanks. -- tejun