linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] blkcg: prepare blkcg knobs for default hierarchy

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:	Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:18:26 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] blkcg: prepare blkcg knobs for default hierarchy

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:06:50AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:

[..]
> But then do we name other stat knobs similarly too?
> 
>  blkio.cfq.io_service_sectors
>  blkio.cfq.io_service_bytes
>  blkio.cfq.io_serviced
>  blkio.cfq.io_merged
> 
> I don't know.  The names look outright stupid to me.  If we don't do
> the above, then we have internal inconsistencies among cfq knob names
> which gotta be worse then cfq / throttl inconsistency.  It's not a
> perfect situation no matter what we do.  As long as each knob is
> clearly documented, I don't think these inconsistencies are big deal,
> so let's just clean up cfq names as we need to add prefix anyway.

Ok, that's fine. Let us just document the knobs well so that people can
find which knob is giving what information and make cfq names better at
the expense of inconsistency of names with throttling layer.

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/