linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 09/10] sched/psi: per-cgroup PSI stats disable/re-enable interface

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 11 Aug 2022 10:09:28 +0800
From:   Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     corbet@....net, surenb@...gle.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, songmuchun@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/10] sched/psi: per-cgroup PSI stats
 disable/re-enable interface

On 2022/8/11 01:27, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 11:25:07AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> How about just cgroup.pressure? Too ambiguous?
>>
>> cgroup.pressure.enable sounds good to me too. Or, because it's
>> default-enabled and that likely won't change, cgroup.pressure.disable.
> 
> .disable sounds more logical but I like .enable better for some reason. As
> for just cgroup.pressure, yeah, maybe? The conundrum is that the prettiness
> order is the exact reverse of the logical order. So, I'm okay with any of
> the three.

Ok, so I would like to pick the prettiest "cgroup.pressure", it also looks more
consistent with {cpu|memory|io}.pressure.

Thanks!