linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET v3 block/for-linus] IO cost model based work-conserving porportional controller

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]

Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 08:56:53 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, newella@...com, clm@...com,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, dennisz@...com,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, hannes@...xchg.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v3 block/for-linus] IO cost model based
 work-conserving porportional controller

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 05:54:38PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> I see an important interface problem.  Userspace has been waiting for
> io.weight to become eventually the file name for setting the weight
> for the proportional-share policy [1,2].  If you use that name, how
> will we solve this?

So, my plan is just disabling iocost if bfq is selected as the io
scheduler.  It makes no sense to use them together anyway.  What do
you wanna do about the existing interface files prefixed with bfq?
Just rename them?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun