[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <938957C8-3A0F-4664-8D1F-A822F6D6D4E7@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 17:06:47 +0200
From: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
'Paolo Valente' via bfq-iosched
<bfq-iosched@...glegroups.com>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
Angelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@...il.com>,
lennart@...ttering.net, mkoutny@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] block, bfq: delete "bfq" prefix from cgroup filenames
> Il giorno 8 apr 2019, alle ore 17:05, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> ha scritto:
>
> On 4/8/19 9:04 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>> [+Cc Michal ]
>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 04:54:39PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Il giorno 8 apr 2019, alle ore 16:49, Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de> ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, but AFAIK, the problem is exactly the opposite: nobody uses these
>>> names for the proportional-share policy, or wants to use these names. I'm
>>> CCing Lennart too, in case he has some improbable news on this.
>>>
>>> So the idea is to align names to what people expect, possibly before
>>> more confusion arises.
>>
>> OK, crazy idea, not sure if Jens and Tejun will beat me for this, but
>> symlinks?
>>
>> This way we can a) keep the old files and b) have them point to the new (a.k.a
>> cfq style) files.
>
> I did consider that, and that would be doable. But honestly, I'm having a
> hard time seeing what issue we are attempting to fix by doing this.
>
The problem is ~100% of people and software believing to set weights and not doing it.
Paolo
> --
> Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists