linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V4 1/6] blk: prepare to make blk-rq-qos pluggable and modular

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: <39db454d-ca30-fb42-3d72-899efa34fb78@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:10:01 +0800
From:   Wang Jianchao <jianchao.wan9@...il.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC V4 1/6] blk: prepare to make blk-rq-qos pluggable and
 modular



On 2022/2/23 11:08 上午, Wang Jianchao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2022/2/23 1:19 上午, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:13:44AM +0800, Wang Jianchao (Kuaishou) wrote:
>>> (3) Add /sys/block/x/queue/qos
>>>     We can use '+name' or "-name" to open or close the blk-rq-qos
>>>     policy.
>>
>> I don't understand why we're modularizing rq-qos in this non-standard way
>> instead of modprobing to enable a policy and rmmoding to disable. Why are we
>> building in qos names into the kernel and adding an extra module handling
>> interface?
> 
> Hi Tejun
> 
> We just want to provide the flexibility for the user to open/close a policy
> per device. If we need to the policy on a device, we needn't to waste cpu
sorry, it should be "If we don't need the policy on a device" ;)

Thanks
Jianchao
> cycles and memory for it.
> 
> Thanks
> Jianchao