[RFC] Add BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_IOCTL

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 12:19:13PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 12:13 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 11:33:46AM -0400, Kenny Ho wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 4:59 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hm I missed that. I feel like time-sliced-of-a-whole gpu is the easier gpu
> > > > cgroups controler to get started, since it's much closer to other cgroups
> > > > that control bandwidth of some kind. Whether it's i/o bandwidth or compute
> > > > bandwidht is kinda a wash.
> > > sriov/time-sliced-of-a-whole gpu does not really need a cgroup
> > > interface since each slice appears as a stand alone device.  This is
> > > already in production (not using cgroup) with users.  The cgroup
> > > proposal has always been parallel to that in many sense: 1) spatial
> > > partitioning as an independent but equally valid use case as time
> > > sharing, 2) sub-device resource control as opposed to full device
> > > control motivated by the workload characterization paper.  It was
> > > never about time vs space in terms of use cases but having new API for
> > > users to be able to do spatial subdevice partitioning.
> > >
> > > > CU mask feels a lot more like an isolation/guaranteed forward progress
> > > > kind of thing, and I suspect that's always going to be a lot more gpu hw
> > > > specific than anything we can reasonably put into a general cgroups
> > > > controller.
> > > The first half is correct but I disagree with the conclusion.  The
> > > analogy I would use is multi-core CPU.  The capability of individual
> > > CPU cores, core count and core arrangement may be hw specific but
> > > there are general interfaces to support selection of these cores.  CU
> > > mask may be hw specific but spatial partitioning as an idea is not.
> > > Most gpu vendors have the concept of sub-device compute units (EU, SE,
> > > etc.); OpenCL has the concept of subdevice in the language.  I don't
> > > see any obstacle for vendors to implement spatial partitioning just
> > > like many CPU vendors support the idea of multi-core.
> > >
> > > > Also for the time slice cgroups thing, can you pls give me pointers to
> > > > these old patches that had it, and how it's done? I very obviously missed
> > > > that part.
> > > I think you misunderstood what I wrote earlier.  The original proposal
> > > was about spatial partitioning of subdevice resources not time sharing
> > > using cgroup (since time sharing is already supported elsewhere.)
> >
> > Well SRIOV time-sharing is for virtualization. cgroups is for
> > containerization, which is just virtualization but with less overhead and
> > more security bugs.
> >
> > More or less.
> >
> > So either I get things still wrong, or we'll get time-sharing for
> > virtualization, and partitioning of CU for containerization. That doesn't
> > make that much sense to me.
> 
> You could still potentially do SR-IOV for containerization.  You'd
> just pass one of the PCI VFs (virtual functions) to the container and
> you'd automatically get the time slice.  I don't see why cgroups would
> be a factor there.

Standard interface to manage that time-slicing. I guess for SRIOV it's all
vendor sauce (intel as guilty as anyone else from what I can see), but for
cgroups that feels like it's falling a bit short of what we should aim
for.

But dunno, maybe I'm just dreaming too much :-)
-Daniel

> Alex
> 
> >
> > Since time-sharing is the first thing that's done for virtualization I
> > think it's probably also the most reasonable to start with for containers.
> > -Daniel
> > --
> > Daniel Vetter
> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> > _______________________________________________
> > amd-gfx mailing list
> > amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch