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: <2BEF2051-3C39-4CE1-A460-BBAE586A528F@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jan 2018 23:28:55 +0100
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, 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



> Il giorno 09 gen 2018, alle ore 20:53, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> ha scritto:
> 
> 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...
> 

Yep.  So, do you guys think that our proposal may be ok?  We are
waiting just for the green light to start implementing it.

Thanks,
Paolo

> -- 
> Jens Axboe
>