[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160305125215.GC3567@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 07:52:15 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@...il.com>
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
lizefan@...wei.com, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.com>,
"Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, james.l.morris@...cle.com,
serge@...lyn.com, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>, raindel@...lanox.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 1/3] rdmacg: Added rdma cgroup controller
Hello, Parav.
On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 04:45:09PM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote:
> Design that remains same from v6 to v10.
> * spin lock is still fine grained at cgroup level instead of one
> global shared lock among all cgroups.
> In future it can be optimized further to do per cpu or using
> single lock if required.
> * file type enums are still present for max and current, as
> read/write call to those files is already taken care by common
> functions with required if/else.
> * Resource limit setting is as it is, because number of devices are
> in range of 1 to 4 count in most use cases (as explained in
> documentation), and its not hot path.
1 and 2 are not okay. 3 is fine but resource [un]charging is not hot
path?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists