From: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
noreply-spamdigest via bfq-iosched
<bfq-iosched@googlegroups.com>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Angelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block, bfq: delete "bfq" prefix from cgroup filenames
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 08:55:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <FE1AEF80-F07F-42DE-A979-BC5AE72B25A1@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <de7664b1-6f47-8a7b-b231-727336c0ef85@kernel.dk>
> Il giorno 20 set 2019, alle ore 15:05, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> ha scritto:
>
> On 9/20/19 12:58 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Il giorno 18 set 2019, alle ore 18:19, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Il giorno 18 set 2019, alle ore 17:19, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 07:18:50AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>>>> A solution that both fulfills userspace request and doesn't break
>>>>> anything for hypothetical users of the current interface already made
>>>>> it to mainline, and Linus liked it too. It is:
>>>>
>>>> Linus didn't like it. The implementation was a bit nasty. That was
>>>> why it became a subject in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>> 19e9da9e86c4 ("block, bfq: add weight symlink to the bfq.weight cgroup parameter")
>>>>>
>>>>> But it was then reverted on Tejun's request to do exactly what we
>>>>> don't want do any longer now:
>>>>> cf8929885de3 ("cgroup/bfq: revert bfq.weight symlink change")
>>>>
>>>> Note that the interface was wrong at the time too.
>>>>
>>>>> So, Jens, Tejun, can we please just revert that revert?
>>>>
>>>> I think presenting both io.weight and io.bfq.weight interfaces are
>>>> probably the best course of action at this point but why does it have
>>>> to be a symlink? What's wrong with just creating another file with
>>>> the same backing function?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think a symlink would be much clearer for users, given the confusion
>>> already caused by two names for the same parameter. But let's hear
>>> others' opinion too.
>>>
>>
>> Jens, could you express your opinion on this? Any solution you and
>> Tejun agree on is ok for me. Also this new (fourth) possible
>> implementation of this fix, provided that then it is definitely ok for
>> both of you.
>
> Retaining both interfaces is arguably the right solution.
So you also are voting for BFQ to create two files, instead of having a
symlink, aren't you? I just want to be certain before submitting one
more solution.
Looking forward to your confirmation,
Paolo
> It would be
> nice if we didn't have to, but the first bfq variant was incompatible
> with the in-kernel one, so we'll always have that out in the wild.
> Adding everything to stable doesn't work, as we still have existing
> kernels out there with the interface. In fact, in some ways that's
> worse, as you definitely don't want interfaces to change between two
> stable kernels.
>
> I know it's not ideal, and some better initial planning would have
> made it better, but we have to deal with the situation as it stands
> now.
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-21 6:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-17 16:51 [PATCH 0/2 block/for-next] block, blkcg, bfq: make bfq disable iocost and delete bfq prefix from cgroup filenames Paolo Valente
2019-09-17 16:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] blkcg: Make bfq disable iocost when enabled Paolo Valente
2019-09-17 16:51 ` [PATCH 2/2] block, bfq: delete "bfq" prefix from cgroup filenames Paolo Valente
2019-09-17 21:04 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2019-09-17 21:32 ` Tejun Heo
2019-09-18 5:18 ` Paolo Valente
2019-09-18 15:19 ` Tejun Heo
2019-09-18 16:19 ` Paolo Valente
2019-09-20 6:58 ` Paolo Valente
2019-09-20 13:05 ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-21 6:55 ` Paolo Valente [this message]
2019-09-18 6:09 ` Ulf Hansson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=FE1AEF80-F07F-42DE-A979-BC5AE72B25A1@linaro.org \
--to=paolo.valente@linaro.org \
--cc=angeloruocco90@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bfq-iosched@googlegroups.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleksandr@natalenko.name \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).