Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1257786 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 0/7] devcg: device cgroup extension for rdma resource

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 0/7] devcg: device cgroup extension for rdma resource Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 09:30 +0100

#1257786 — Re: [PATCH 0/7] devcg: device cgroup extension for rdma resource

Hi,

I finally got some chance and progress on redesigning rdma cgroup
controller for the most use cases that we discussed in this email
chain.
I am posting RFC and soon code in new email.

Parav


On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Haggai Eran <haggaie@mellanox.com> wrote:
> On 15/09/2015 06:45, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> No, I'm saying the resource pool is *well defined* and *fixed* by each
>> hardware.
>>
>> The only question is how do we expose the N resource limits, the list
>> of which is totally vendor specific.
>
> I don't see why you say the limits are vendor specific. It is true that
> different RDMA devices have different implementations and capabilities,
> but they all use the expose the same set of RDMA objects with their
> limitations. Whether those limitations come from hardware limitations,
> from the driver, or just because the address space is limited, they can
> still be exhausted.
>
>> Yes, using a % scheme fixes the ratios, 1% is going to be a certain
>> number of PD's, QP's, MRs, CQ's, etc at a ratio fixed by the driver
>> configuration. That is the trade off for API simplicity.
>>
>>
>> Yes, this results in some resources being over provisioned.
>
> I agree that such a scheme will be easy to configure, but I don't think
> it can work well in all situations. Imagine you want to let one
> container use almost all RC QPs as you want it to connect to the entire
> cluster through RC. Other containers can still use a single datagram QP
> to connect to the entire cluster, but they would require many address
> handles. If you force a fixed ratio of resources given to each container
> it would be hard to describe such a partitioning.
>
> I think it would be better to expose different controls for the
> different RDMA resources.
>
> Regards,
> Haggai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web