Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 10 Sep 2019 09:08:55 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc:     hannes@cmpxchg.org, clm@fb.com, dennisz@fb.com, newella@fb.com,
        lizefan@huawei.com, axboe@kernel.dk, josef@toxicpanda.com,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>, kernel-team@fb.com,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] blkcg: implement blk-iocost
Message-ID: <20190910160855.GS2263813@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
References: <20190828220600.2527417-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <20190828220600.2527417-9-tj@kernel.org>
 <20190910125513.GA6399@blackbody.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190910125513.GA6399@blackbody.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello, Michal.

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 02:55:14PM +0200, Michal Koutn? wrote:
> This adds the generic io.weight attribute. How will this compose with
> the weight from IO schedulers? (AFAIK, only BFQ allows proportional
> control as of now. +CC Paolo.)

The two being enabled at the same time doesn't make sense, so we can
just switch over to bfq when bfq is selected as the iosched.  I asked
what Paolo wanted to do in terms of interface a couple times now but
didn't get an answer and he posted a patch which makes the two
controllers conflict, so....  Paolo, so it looks like you want to
rename all bfq files to drop the bfq prefix, right?  I can implement
the switching if so.

> I see this attributes are effectively per-cgroup per-device. Apparently,
> one device should have only one weight across hierarchy. Would it make
> sense to have io.bfq.weight and io.cost.weight with disjunctive devices?

It never makes sense to have both enabled, so I don't think that
interface makes sense.

> > +		.name = "cost.qos",
> > +		.flags = CFTYPE_ONLY_ON_ROOT,
> > [...]
> > +		.name = "cost.model",
> > +		.flags = CFTYPE_ONLY_ON_ROOT,
> I'm concerned that these aren't true cgroup attributes. The root cgroup
> would act as container for global configuration options. Wouldn't these
> values better fit as (configurable) attributes of the respective
> devices?

Initially, I put them under block device sysfs but it was too clumsy
with different config file formats and all.  I think it's better to
have global controller configs at the root cgroup.

> Secondly, how is CFTYPE_ONLY_ON_ROOT supposed to be presented in cgroup
> namespaces?

Not at all.  These are system-wide configs.  cgroup namespaces
shouldn't have anything which aren't in non-root cgroups.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun