linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] cgroup: gpu: Add a cgroup controller for allocator attribution of GPU memory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 5 May 2022 13:50:15 +0200
From:   Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To:     "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@...gle.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@...gle.com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>, Kenny.Ho@....com,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] cgroup: gpu: Add a cgroup controller for
 allocator attribution of GPU memory

On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 10:19:20AM -0700, "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@...gle.com> wrote:
> Should I export these now for this series?

Hehe, _I_ don't know.
Depends on the likelihood this lands in and is built upon.

> No, except maybe the gpucg_bucket name which I can add an accessor
> function for. Won't this mean depending on LTO for potential inlining
> of the functions currently implemented in the header?

Yes.  Also depends how much inlining here would be performance relevant.
I suggested this with an OS vendor hat on, i.e. the less such ABI, the
simpler.

> I'm happy to make this change, but I wonder why some parts of the
> kernel take this approach and others do not.

I think there is no convention (see also
Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst ;-)).

Regards,
Michal