linux-kernel - Re: do we really want to export more pdflush details in sysctls

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 May 2009 15:08:11 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:	Peter W Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
	akpm@...l.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: do we really want to export more pdflush details in sysctls

On Wed, May 13 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> commit fafd688e4c0c34da0f3de909881117d374e4c7af titled
> "mm: add /proc controls for pdflush threads" adds two more sysctl
> variables exposing details about pdflush threads.  At the same time
> Jens Axboe is working on the per-bdi writeback patchset which will
> hopefull soon get rid of the pdflush threads in their current form.
> 
> Is it really a good idea to expose more details now or should we revert
> this patch before 2.6.30 is out?

Pained me as well when updating the patchset. I see little value in
these knobs as it is, I'm imagining that the submitter must have had a
use case where it made some difference?

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/