Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756505AbeAIW3C (ORCPT + 1 other); Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:29:02 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:40466 "EHLO mail-wm0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755070AbeAIW3A (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:29:00 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBous5a91Wp40M9brxsvhVJRobhFnvtwo2EBBgtEi8OG0CBIGT05ALRrEwsHF/276F4rf0LmZZg== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Subject: Re: unify the interface of the proportional-share policy in blkio/io From: Paolo Valente In-Reply-To: <28156887-c8eb-f142-f6c4-db726680305b@kernel.dk> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 23:28:55 +0100 Cc: Tejun Heo , lennart@poettering.net, linux-block , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ulf Hansson , Linus Walleij , Mark Brown , ANGELO RUOCCO <220530@studenti.unimore.it> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: <2BEF2051-3C39-4CE1-A460-BBAE586A528F@linaro.org> References: <56EFD7A1-A894-410D-A923-E33911ED4647@linaro.org> <20180109195205.GP3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <28156887-c8eb-f142-f6c4-db726680305b@kernel.dk> To: Jens Axboe X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: > Il giorno 09 gen 2018, alle ore 20:53, Jens Axboe ha scritto: > > On 1/9/18 12:52 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hello, Paolo. >> >> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 08:00:02PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote: >>> The solution for the second type of parameters may prove useful to >>> unify also the computation of statistics for the throttling policy. >>> >>> Does this proposal sound reasonable? >> >> So, the above should work too but I wonder whether we could do this >> simpler. Frankly, I wouldn't mind if cfq and bfq can't be mixed on a >> system - e.g. they can be built together but you can't enable bfq on >> some devides and cfq on others. If we do that, all we need to do is >> just removing / adding cftypes when either gets activated which cgroup >> already does. > > Not sure that would fly, since cfq is legacy and bfq is mq. You don't > always have a free choice of which one to use... > Yep. So, do you guys think that our proposal may be ok? We are waiting just for the green light to start implementing it. Thanks, Paolo > -- > Jens Axboe >