Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:51:16 -0500
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
Cc:     Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>, mkoutny@suse.com,
        rdunlap@infradead.org, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        brijesh.singh@amd.com, jon.grimm@amd.com, eric.vantassell@amd.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@de.ibm.com, corbet@lwn.net, seanjc@google.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com,
        joro@8bytes.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, gingell@google.com,
        rientjes@google.com, dionnaglaze@google.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/2] cgroup: sev: Miscellaneous cgroup documentation.
Message-ID: <YECfhCJtHUL9cB2L@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20210302081705.1990283-1-vipinsh@google.com>
 <20210302081705.1990283-3-vipinsh@google.com>
 <20210303185513.27e18fce@jacob-builder>
 <YEB8i6Chq4K/GGF6@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YEB8i6Chq4K/GGF6@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 10:22:03PM -0800, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > I am trying to see if IOASIDs cgroup can also fit in this misc controller
> > as yet another resource type.
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20210303131726.7a8cb169@jacob-builder/T/#u
> > However, unlike sev IOASIDs need to be migrated if the process is moved to
> > another cgroup. i.e. charge the destination and uncharge the source.
> > 
> > Do you think this behavior can be achieved by differentiating resource
> > types? i.e. add attach callbacks for certain types. Having a single misc
> > interface seems cleaner than creating another controller.
> 
> I think it makes sense to add support for migration for the resources
> which need it. Resources like SEV, SEV-ES will not participate in
> migration and won't stop can_attach() to succeed, other resources which
> need migration will allow or stop based on their limits and capacity in
> the destination.

Please note that cgroup2 by and large don't really like or support charge
migration or even migrations themselves. We tried that w/ memcg on cgroup1
and it turned out horrible. The expected usage model as decribed in the doc
is using migration to seed a cgroup (or even better, use the new clone call
to start in the target cgroup) and then stay there until exit. All existing
controllers assume this usage model and I'm likely to nack deviation unless
there are some super strong justifications.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun