Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 13:24:46 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Jinlong Chen <nickyc975@zju.edu.cn>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, axboe@kernel.dk,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] elevator: restore old io scheduler on failure
 in elevator_switch
Message-ID: <20221122122446.GA5068@lst.de>
References: <cover.1668772991.git.nickyc975@zju.edu.cn> <20221121071305.GB23882@lst.de> <6d74b4a9.5489.1849f42de2d.Coremail.nickyc975@zju.edu.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6d74b4a9.5489.1849f42de2d.Coremail.nickyc975@zju.edu.cn>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 08:14:30PM +0800, Jinlong Chen wrote:
> Mostly failures specific to the intended io scheduler, like consuming more
> resources than the old one that the system can not afford. But sure it's
> rare, so do you think I should just correct the outdated document?

I'd be tempted to just documented the behavior, because I think the
chances are high that if switching to one schedule will fail that
switching back to the old one will fail as well.  I've done a quick
audit of all three schedulers, and unless I missed something there
are no other failure cases except for running out of memory.

Maybe a printk to document that switching the scheduler failed are
we aren't using any scheduler now might be useful, though.