linux-kernel - Re: unify the interface of the proportional-share policy in blkio/io

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: <28156887-c8eb-f142-f6c4-db726680305b@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:53:24 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc:     lennart@...ttering.net, linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        ANGELO RUOCCO <220530@...denti.unimore.it>
Subject: Re: unify the interface of the proportional-share policy in blkio/io

On 1/9/18 12:52 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Paolo.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 08:00:02PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> The solution for the second type of parameters may prove useful to
>> unify also the computation of statistics for the throttling policy.
>>
>> Does this proposal sound reasonable?
> 
> So, the above should work too but I wonder whether we could do this
> simpler.  Frankly, I wouldn't mind if cfq and bfq can't be mixed on a
> system - e.g. they can be built together but you can't enable bfq on
> some devides and cfq on others.  If we do that, all we need to do is
> just removing / adding cftypes when either gets activated which cgroup
> already does.

Not sure that would fly, since cfq is legacy and bfq is mq. You don't
always have a free choice of which one to use...

-- 
Jens Axboe