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]

Message-ID: <20140423170141.GJ4781@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:01:41 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
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 10:18:26AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> 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.

I've been thinking about it more.  Why do we even have separate stats
for common things like bytes transferred?  It doesn't serve any
purpose to do double accounting and reporting on everything, does it?
Shouldn't we just have single set of common stats for things like
requests / bytes serviced?

Thanks.

-- 
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/