Re: [PATCHv12 0/3] rdmacg: IB/core: rdma controller support

[Parav Pandit]

Hi Leon,

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 02:07:24PM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote:
>> rdmacg: IB/core: rdma controller support
>>
>> Patch is generated and tested against below Doug's linux-rdma
>> git tree.
>>
>> URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dledford/rdma.git
>> Branch: master
>>
>> Patchset is also compiled and tested against below Tejun's cgroup tree
>> using cgroup v2 mode.
>> URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/cgroup.git
>> Branch: master
>>
>> Overview:
>> Currently user space applications can easily take away all the rdma
>> device specific resources such as AH, CQ, QP, MR etc. Due to which other
>> applications in other cgroup or kernel space ULPs may not even get chance
>> to allocate any rdma resources. This results into service unavailibility.
>>
>> RDMA cgroup addresses this issue by allowing resource accounting,
>> limit enforcement on per cgroup, per rdma device basis.
>>
>> RDMA uverbs layer will enforce limits on well defined RDMA verb
>> resources without any HCA vendor device driver involvement.
>>
>> RDMA uverbs layer will not do limit enforcement of HCA hw vendor
>> specific resources. Instead rdma cgroup provides set of APIs
>> through which vendor specific drivers can do resource accounting
>> by making use of rdma cgroup.
>
> Hi Parav,
> I want to propose an extension to the RDMA cgroup which can be done as
> follow-up patches.
>

To bring logical end to this feature/patch discussion and to progress
towards merging it, Lets discuss this new feature in follow-on email
right after this email between these two mailing list and I will drop
linux kernel and docs mailing list.

> Let's add new global type, which will control whole HCA (for example in percentages). It will
> allow natively define new objects without need to introduce them to the user.
>
> This HCA share will be overwritten by specific UVERBS types which you
> already defined.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Except this proposal,
> Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks a lot for review.

Parav