[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG53R5XZRtG4BeLv9wdLB4wW4iDLnEPHeoynaTPi_Sp6ht_3fA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:30:15 +0530
From: Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@...il.com>
To: "Dalessandro, Dennis" <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>
Cc: "leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
"lizefan@...wei.com" <lizefan@...wei.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"ogerlitz@...lanox.com" <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
"hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"haggaie@...lanox.com" <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"james.l.morris@...cle.com" <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"liranl@...lanox.com" <liranl@...lanox.com>,
"jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com" <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
"matanb@...lanox.com" <matanb@...lanox.com>,
"serge@...lyn.com" <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv12 1/3] rdmacg: Added rdma cgroup controller
Hi Denny,
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Dalessandro, Dennis
<dennis.dalessandro@...el.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 12:36 +0530, Parav Pandit wrote:
>> Hi Dennis,
>>
>> Do you know how would HFI1 driver would work along with rdma cgroup?
>
> Keep in mind HFI1 driver has two "modes" of operation. We support
> verbs, and would surely fall in line with whatever cgroups do for IB
> core.
Thanks for the feedback.
> For our psm interface, not sure how cgroups would come into play.
> Psm is designed to expose the hw to user and avoid the kernel when
> possible adding more kernel control is sort of contrary to that.
>
Yes, PSM is currently out of RDMA cgroup and in future we can take a
look on how things shape as subsystem if it does.
> Now that being said, Christoph recently made mention of maybe having a
> drivers/psm [1]. I really haven't had a chance to think about the
> implications of that, but maybe it's worth considering, after all we
> have two implementations, qib and hfi1. So anyway I'm not sure we need
> to be too concerned about cgroups right now as far as psm side of
> things goes.
>
o.k.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists