On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:30:23AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> Quoting Matt Roper (2018-03-23 17:46:16)
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:15:38PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > Quoting Matt Roper (2018-03-17 02:08:57)
> > > > This is the fourth iteration of the work previously posted here:
> > > >   (v1) 
> > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2018-January/153156.html
> > > >   (v2) 
> > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg208170.html
> > > >   (v3) 
> > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2018-March/157928.html
> > > > 
> > > > The high level goal of this work is to allow non-cgroup-controller parts
> > > > of the kernel (e.g., device drivers) to register their own private
> > > > policy data for specific cgroups.  That mechanism is then made use of in
> > > > the i915 graphics driver to allow GPU priority to be assigned according
> > > > to the cgroup membership of the owning process.  Please see the v1 cover
> > > > letter linked above for a more in-depth explanation and justification.
> > > 
> > > Hi Matt,
> > > 
> > > For cross-subsystem changes such as this, it makes sense to Cc all
> > > relevant maintainers, especially if there have been previous comments to
> > > earlier revisions.
> > > 
> > > Please, do include and keep a reference to the userspace portion of the
> > > changes when you suggest new uAPI to be added. At least I have some 
> > > trouble
> > > trying to track down the relevant interface consumer here.
> > > 
> > > I'm unsure how much sense it makes to commence with detailed i915 review
> > > if we will be blocked by lack of userspace after that? I'm assuming
> > > you've read through [1] already.
> > 
> > Hi Joonas,
> > 
> > I've sent the userspace code out a few times, but it looks like I forgot
> > to include a copy with v4/v4.5.  Here's the version I provided with v3:
> >   https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2018-March/157935.html
> Thanks. Keeping that in the relevant commit message of the patch that
> introduces the new uAPI will make it harder to forget and easiest for
> git blame, too.
> > 
> > Usually we don't consider things like i-g-t to be sufficient userspace
> > consumers because we need a real-world consumer rather than a "toy"
> > userspace.  However in this case, the i-g-t tool, although very simple,
> > is really the only userspace consumer I expect there to ever be.
> > Ultimately the true consumer of this cgroups work are bash scripts, sysv
> > init scripts, systemd recipes, etc.  that just need a very simple tool
> > to assign the specific values that make sense on a given system.
> > There's no expectation that graphics clients or display servers would
> > ever need to make use of these interfaces.
> I was under the impression that a bit more generic GPU cgroups support
> was receiving a lot of support in the early discussion? A dedicated
> intel_cgroup sounds underwhelming, when comparing to idea of "gpu_nice",
> for user adoption :)

I'm open to moving the cgroup_priv registration/lookup to the DRM core
if other drivers are interested in using this mechanism and if we can
come to an agreement on a standard priority offset range to support, how
display boost should work for all drivers, etc.  There might be some
challenges mapping a DRM-defined priority range down to a different
range that makes sense for individual driver schedulers, especially
since some drivers already expose a different priority scheme to
userspace via other interfaces like i915 does with GEM context priority.

So far I haven't really heard any interest outside the Intel camp, but
hopefully other driver teams can speak up if they're for/against this.
I don't want to try to artificially standardize this if other drivers
want to go a different direction with priority/scheduling that's too
different from the current Intel-driven design.

> Also, I might not be up-to-date about all things cgroups, but the way
> intel_cgroup works, feels bit forced. We create a userspace context just
> to communicate with the driver and the IOCTL will still have global
> effects. I can't but think that i915 reading from the cgroups subsystem
> for the current process would feel more intuitive to me.

I think you're referring to the earlier discussion about exposing
priority directly via the cgroups filesystem?  That would certainly be
simpler from a userspace perspective, but it's not the direction that
the cgroups maintainer wants to see things go.  Adding files directly to
the cgroups filesystem is supposed to be something that's reserved for
official cgroups controllers.  The GPU priority concept we're trying to
add here doesn't align with the requirements for creating a controller,
so the preferred approach is to create a custom interface (syscall or
ioctl) that simply takes a cgroup as a parameter.  There's precendent
with similar interfaces in areas like BPF (where the bpf() system call
can accept a cgroup as a parameter and then perform its own private
policy changes as it sees fit).

Using a true cgroups controller and exposing settings via the filesystem
is likely still the way we'll want to go for some other types of
cgroups-based policy in the future (e.g., limiting GPU memory usage); it
just isn't the appropriate direction for priority.

> Does the implementation mimic some existing cgroups tool or de-facto way
> of doing things in cgroups world?

The ioctl approach I took is similar to syscall approach that the BPF
guys use to attach BPF programs to a cgroup.  I'm not very familiar with
BPF or how it gets used from userspace, so I'm not sure whether the
interface is intended for one specific tool (like ours is), or whether
there's more variety for userspace consumers.


> Regards, Joonas
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Matt Roper
Graphics Software Engineer
IoTG Platform Enabling & Development
Intel Corporation
(916) 356-2795
dri-devel mailing list

Reply via email to