Hello.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 05:07:20PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
> +struct drm_cgroup_state {
> + struct cgroup_subsys_state css;
> +};
> +
> +struct drm_root_cgroup_state {
> + struct drm_cgroup_state drmcs;
> +};
> +
> +static struct drm_root_cgroup_state root_drmcs;
Special str
Hello.
(I hope I'm replying to the latest iteration and it has some validitiy
still. Sorry for my late reply. Few points caught my attention.)
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 05:07:25PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
> @@ -15,10 +17,28 @@ struct drm_cgroup_state {
> struct cgroup_subsys_state css;
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 04:56:07PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
> +static int drmcs_can_attach(struct cgroup_taskset *tset)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + /*
> + * As processes are getting moved between groups we need to ensure
> + * both that the old group does not see a sudden down
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 05:57:24PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
> So even if the RFC shows just a simple i915 implementation, the controller
> itself shouldn't prevent a smarter approach (via exposed ABI).
scan/query + over budget notification is IMO limited in guarantees.
> [...]
> Yes agreed,
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 01:31:54PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
> I think you missed the finish_suspend_scanning() part:
>
> if (root_drmcs.suspended_period_us)
> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&root_drmcs.scan_work);
>
> So if scanning was in progress migration will wait until it
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:40:58AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
> The main point is, should someone prove me wrong and come up a smarter way
> at some point in the future, then "drm.weight" as an ABI remains compatible
> and the improvement can happen completely under the hood. In the mean time
>
Hello Tvrtko.
Interesting work.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 04:55:57PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
> Because of the heterogenous hardware and driver DRM capabilities, soft limits
> are implemented as a loose co-operative (bi-directional) interface between the
> controller and DRM core.
IIUC, this
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 06:11:35PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
> I don't immediately see how you envisage the half-userspace implementation
> would look like in terms of what functionality/new APIs would be provided by
> the kernel?
Output:
drm.stat (with consumed time(s))
Input:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:00:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Would it be possible to enclose most or all of kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> in an #ifdef CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT block?
Even without any controllers, there can still be named hierarchies (v1)
or the default hierarchy (v2) (for instance) for
rocessor ugliness.
Reviewed-by: Michal Koutný
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
10 matches
Mail list logo
