| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20120123163246.GG12652@google.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:32:46 -0800 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/17] blkcg: shoot down blkio_groups on elevator switch On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:28:40AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > Can we avoid integrating everything into single blkg. What's wrong with > separate blkg for separage policy. In this case we just don't have the > flexbility to change throttling policy. If it is compiled in, it gets > activated. The only configurable thing is IO scheduler and these groups > will be cleaned up. > > So keeping blkg separate for separate policy gives us this flexibility > that we don't have to cleanup throttling data and keep the throttling > rules persistent across elevator switch. I think that's the wrong trade off. We end up duplicating common stuff all over the place and the code to deal with the mess is naturally horrible and almost incomprehensible. Persistency is much more minor issue and should be handled as such. It shouldn't contort the whole design like it does now. Let's talk about persistency in the other reply. -- tejun -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists