[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190408144925.GA23021@linux-x5ow.site>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:49:25 +0200
From: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
To: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, broonie@...nel.org,
bfq-iosched@...glegroups.com, oleksandr@...alenko.name,
Angelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] block, bfq: delete "bfq" prefix from cgroup filenames
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 04:39:35PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> From: Angelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@...il.com>
>
> When bfq was merged into mainline, there were two I/O schedulers that
> implemented the proportional-share policy: bfq for blk-mq and cfq for
> legacy blk. bfq's interface files in the blkio/io controller have the
> same names as cfq. But the cgroups interface doesn't allow two
> entities to use the same name for their files, so for bfq we had to
> prepend the "bfq" prefix to each of its files. However no legacy code
> uses these modified file names. This naming also causes confusion, as,
> e.g., in [1].
>
> Now cfq has gone with legacy blk, so there is no need any longer for
> these prefixes in (the never used) bfq names. In view of this fact, this
> commit removes these prefixes, thereby enabling legacy code to truly
> use the proportional share policy in blk-mq.
>
> [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/7057
Hmm, but isn't this a user-space facing interface and thus some sort of ABI?
Do you know what's using it and what breaks due to this conversion?
--
Johannes Thumshirn SUSE Labs Filesystems
jthumshirn@...e.de +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
Powered by blists - more mailing lists