netdev - Re: [RFC] Add BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP

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]

Message-ID: <YJWqIVnX9giaKMTG@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Fri, 7 May 2021 16:59:13 -0400
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Kenny Ho <y2kenny@...il.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kenny Ho <Kenny.Ho@....com>,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brian Welty <brian.welty@...el.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        amd-gfx list <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Add BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_IOCTL

Hello,

On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 03:55:39PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> The problem is temporal partitioning on GPUs is much harder to enforce
> unless you have a special case like SR-IOV.  Spatial partitioning, on
> AMD GPUs at least, is widely available and easily enforced.  What is
> the point of implementing temporal style cgroups if no one can enforce
> it effectively?

So, if generic fine-grained partitioning can't be implemented, the right
thing to do is stopping pushing for full-blown cgroup interface for it. The
hardware simply isn't capable of being managed in a way which allows generic
fine-grained hierarchical scheduling and there's no point in bloating the
interface with half baked hardware dependent features.

This isn't to say that there's no way to support them, but what have been
being proposed is way too generic and ambitious in terms of interface while
being poorly developed on the internal abstraction and mechanism front. If
the hardware can't do generic, either implement the barest minimum interface
(e.g. be a part of misc controller) or go driver-specific - the feature is
hardware specific anyway. I've repeated this multiple times in these
discussions now but it'd be really helpful to try to minimize the interace
while concentrating more on internal abstractions and actual control
mechanisms.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun