[PATCH RFC 2/5] cgroup: Add mechanism to register vendor specific DRM devices
Kenny.Ho at amd.com
Wed Nov 21 22:12:22 UTC 2018
(resending because previous email switched to HTML mode and was filtered out)
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 5:30 PM Tejun Heo <tj at kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:21:14PM +0000, Ho, Kenny wrote:
> > By this reply, are you suggesting that vendor specific resources
> > will never be acceptable to be managed under cgroup? Let say a user
> I wouldn't say never but whatever which gets included as a cgroup
> controller should have clearly defined resource abstractions and the
> control schemes around them including support for delegation. AFAICS,
> gpu side still seems to have a long way to go (and it's not clear
> whether that's somewhere it will or needs to end up).
Right, I totally understand that it's not obvious from this RFC because the 'resource' counting demonstrated in this RFC is trivial in nature, mostly to illustrate the 'vendor' concept. The structure of this patch actually give us the ability to support both abstracted resources you mentioned and vendor specific resources. It is probably not obvious as the RFC only includes two resources and they are both vendor specific. To be clear, I am not saying there aren't abstracted resources in drm, there are (we are still working on those). What I am saying is that not all resources are abstracted and for the purpose of this RFC I was hoping to get some feedback on the vendor specific parts early just so that we don't go down the wrong path.
That said, I think I am getting a better sense of what you are saying. Please correct me if I misinterpreted: your concern is that abstracting by vendor is too high level and it's too much of a free-for-all. Instead, resources should be abstracted at the controller level even if it's only available to a specific vendor (or even a specific product from a specific vendor). Is that a fair read?
A couple of additional side questions:
* Is statistic/accounting-only use cases like those enabled by cpuacct controller no longer sufficient? If it is still sufficient, can you elaborate more on what you mean by having control schemes and supporting delegation?
* When you wrote delegation, do you mean delegation in the sense described in https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt ?
> > To put the questions in more concrete terms, let say a user wants to
> > expose certain part of a gpu to a particular cgroup similar to the
> > way selective cpu cores are exposed to a cgroup via cpuset, how
> > should we go about enabling such functionality?
> Do what the intel driver or bpf is doing? It's not difficult to hook
> into cgroup for identification purposes.
Does intel driver or bpf present an interface file in cgroupfs for users to configure the core selection like cpuset? I must admit I am not too familiar with the bpf case as I was referencing mostly the way rdma was implemented when putting this RFC together.
Perhaps I wasn't communicating clearly so let me see if I can illustrate this discussion with a hypothetical but concrete example using our competitor's product. Nvidia has something called Tensor Cores in some of their GPUs and the purpose of those cores is to accelerate matrix operations for machine learning applications. This is something unique to Nvidia and to my knowledge no one else has something like it. These cores are different from regular shader processors and there are multiple of them in a GPU.
Under the structure of this RFC, if Nvidia wants to make Tensor Cores manageable via cgroup (with the "Allocation" distribution model let say), they will probably have an interface file called "drm.nvidia.tensor_core", in which only nvidia's GPUs will be listed. If a GPU has TC, it will have a positive count, otherwise 0.
If I understand you correctly Tejun, is that they should not do that. What they should do is have an abstracted resource, possibly named "drm.matrix_accelerator" where all drm devices available on a system will be listed. All GPUs except some Nvidia's will have a count of 0. Or perhaps that is not sufficiently abstracted so instead there should be just "drm.cores" instead and that file list both device, core types and count. For one vendor they may have shader proc, texture map unit, tensor core, ray tracing cores as types. Others may have ALUs, EUs and subslices.
Is that an accurate representation of what you are recommending?
More information about the amd-gfx