Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH RFC 2/5] cgroup: Add mechanism to register vendor specific DRM devices

2018-12-03 Thread Ho, Kenny
> That combined with the "GPU memory usable" property should be a good > > > > > starting point to start subdividing the GPU resources for multiple > > > > > users. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, Joonas > > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH RFC 2/5] cgroup: Add mechanism to register vendor specific DRM devices

2018-11-29 Thread Ho, Kenny
a good > > > starting point to start subdividing the GPU resources for multiple > > > users. > > > > > > Regards, Joonas > > > > > > > > > > > Your feedback is highly appreciated. > > > > > > > > Best Regard

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH RFC 2/5] cgroup: Add mechanism to register vendor specific DRM devices

2018-11-27 Thread Ho, Kenny
" property should be a good > starting point to start subdividing the GPU resources for multiple > users. > > Regards, Joonas > > > > > Your feedback is highly appreciated. > > > > Best Regards, > > Harish > > > > > > > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH RFC 4/5] drm/amdgpu: Add accounting of command submission via DRM cgroup

2018-11-26 Thread Ho, Kenny
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:13 PM Koenig, Christian wrote: > Am 23.11.18 um 18:36 schrieb Eric Anholt: > > Christian König writes: > >> Am 20.11.18 um 21:57 schrieb Eric Anholt: > >>> Kenny Ho writes: > Account for the number of command submitted to amdgpu by type on a per > cgroup basi

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH RFC 2/5] cgroup: Add mechanism to register vendor specific DRM devices

2018-11-20 Thread Ho, Kenny
Hi Tejun, Thanks for the reply. A few clarifying questions: On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 3:21 PM Tejun Heo wrote: > So, I'm still pretty negative about adding drm controller at this > point. There isn't enough of common resource model defined yet and > until that gets sorted out I think it's in the