| 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: <20140423185835.GD22755@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:58:35 -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 Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:52:31PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 01:17:20PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > I think we should just require two. One for measuring rate in terms > > of IOPS and other for measuring rate in terms of [kMG]B/sec. > > I meant between cfq and blk-throttle. Why do we have separate stats > for them to present ultimately the same numbers? Oh, sorry, I had misunderstood your question. - Number of IOs serviced will be different at throttling layer and CFQ layer as throttling accounts IO in terms of bios and CFQ accounts in terms of number of requests. - CFQ might not be operational on a device while throttling might be on and one needs bytes stats. - In a custom kernel throttling might not be on and CFQ is on and one needs the stats. So I think we do require duplication of some stats across throttling and CFQ, isn't it? 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists