linux-kernel - Re: [WIP BRANCH] cgroups support in bfq-mq WIP branch

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: <3410FACF-D8AF-41FA-B38B-9EFAE6B301F0@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:15:58 +0100
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     "ulf.hansson@...aro.org" <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
Subject: Re: [WIP BRANCH] cgroups support in bfq-mq WIP branch


> Il giorno 25 feb 2017, alle ore 19:52, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> ha scritto:
> 
> On 02/25/2017 10:44 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I've just completed cgroups support, and I'd like to highlight the
>> main blk-mq issue that I have found along the way.  I have pushed the
>> commit that completes the support for cgroups to the usual WIP branch
>> [1].  Before moving to this issue, I have preliminary question about
>> the scheduler name, since I'm about to start preparing the patch
>> series for submission.  So far, I have used bfq-mq as a temporary
>> name.  Are we fine with it, or should I change it, for example, to
>> just bfq?  Jens?
> 
> Just call it 'bfq', that doesn't conflict with anything that's
> in the kernel already.
> 

ok

>> I've found a sort of circular dependency in blk-mq, related to
>> scheduler initialization.  To describe both the issue and how I've
>> addressed it, I'm pasting the message of the new commit.
> 
> Rebase your patches on top of Linus current master, some of them
> will need to change and some can be dropped.
> 

Done, but the last deadlock issue shows up again :( To help you get
context, I'm going to reply to the email in which your sent the patch that
solved it.


> And disentangle it completely from the old bfq, I don't want to see
> nasty stuff like includes of .c files with prior defines modifying
> behavior of functions.
> 

Of course.

> When that's done, get it posted for review asap. I would imagine
> we will go through a few postings and review cycles, and if we're
> targeting 4.12 with this, then we should get the ball rolling
> on that side.
> 

I was about to to submit, but bumped into the above regression.

Thanks,
Paolo

> -- 
> Jens Axboe
>