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;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jan 2023 06:59:25 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>,
        josef@toxicpanda.com, axboe@kernel.dk, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com,
        "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-cgroup: fix missing pd_online_fn() while activating
 policy
Message-ID: <Y7cB7f98+PNdXUnj@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20230103112833.2013432-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230104151241.GA13268@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <4b559d1d-31e4-6049-4548-451bf7afb4f4@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230105104241.GA16920@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <6f54c858-be91-0fd3-d377-1aabb8a70c6f@huaweicloud.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <6f54c858-be91-0fd3-d377-1aabb8a70c6f@huaweicloud.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:52:29PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 在 2023/01/05 18:45, Michal Koutný 写道:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:43:02AM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > This is based only on code review, currently the only negative effects
> > > is that root blkg from blk-throtl won't call pd_online_fn().
> > 
> > Good, that's a NOP and there are no other uses of pd_online_fn.
> > 
> > I wonder are the separate pd_init_fn and pd_online_fn callbacks
> > necessary today?
> 
> I think online can combine to init, consider that only blk-throttle
> implement pd_online_fn(), but I'm not sure...
> 
> It seems to me the policies(bfq, iocost...) seem don't honor how pd
> apis works: alloc->init->online->offline->free, bfq combines online to
> init, iocost combines offline to free, ...

So, the distinction between alloc and online is that a pd which gets
allocated may be freed without ever going online if later allocations fail.
This is following cgroup init/exit pattern. Maybe it's a bit too elaborate
but the distinction is meaningful, at least in principle.

What seems truly spurious is pd_init_fn(). All that pd_init_fn() can do
should be achievable between pd_alloc_fn() and pd_online_fn(). The overlap
seems at least partially historical and we used to have pd_exit_fn() too.
So, yeah, getting rid of pd_init_fn() would be a nice first step.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun