From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE11C432BE for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 19:14:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AFA56054F for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 19:14:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230413AbhHKTO6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:14:58 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39840 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230224AbhHKTO5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:14:57 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x102d.google.com (mail-pj1-x102d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18589C061765 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 12:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id nt11so5117734pjb.2 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 12:14:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=mI0xCA0y14IHzP6QYohNKLdzsHPCu7+sFrB2dsN2C3I=; b=Pf7fC8h7/nwlROoUridTyS354Y46+UwuCtod9/T6ASDU/Ib7OpwrL1Hcqkpbc10uw2 eX19tni/8LToEgLCMr90GfVzG4q2D9vDKvo+QWOUHAmFnliSjS1oaqrjml8pSlRqebEC mLxPWXKirVG/QzB7u7BVKD69id9mZJOrh2VtVpKVULkybjAHaariQcM8Q0pP4nESDcks O4yBMGp9X2HiKZEUviDL06gMDjhTWVNaDY+n7zcHRwVDB6ukM5i8DRW7pfpx+rOE3AYT pfrncaxt4AmhZnmMWk7YDEFt43tCbmfil4TkZZ5sceJfTCl0tFbhLkbE+bUxGYORkFPC Tbqg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=mI0xCA0y14IHzP6QYohNKLdzsHPCu7+sFrB2dsN2C3I=; b=Re4F0q8MQDv65smHgYBOcA1biWqC5OhnaKixQW3sedb4X/+dHdWMKXvXKlbu+A5AUp pHeFYbpGaWk8rKEuYlMwbNhraCVI92bozVsUNiPnpAVe+au5UBux0pJ+U2GHPEkH3LKe fEsPxE3i41H7YHtFEdoj5MRbj+V4K48MRR1P6cOEDK2hbscDOvIcg9j4l0DLl5FON2Pi ox/NX9ryOeJjbT8gyosD8Qv/BmeOTOCh1F8xKvggaWLAodNRljrvJwohZ0fI7CRg3znr nGWuapaoPox71uanq6Il2tRM7w4TVMjNlc0tKJE8XkN+G3IHFx+FoHYJnodTvofeRntb 9i7A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532WklBjP4cvKft2dycHnC7pwHWBbeL8pQh+g2bkotsmpCnbKG9w rIHRyJ+NmCndhqQxT/sbVwQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxsSuAKa1EpP5R25R8jpfH1z8EBthr6OQh3O+MOeEUHt0Gb2kGHfu8G/Gca2pnIoPhytMT6lg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:903:: with SMTP id bo3mr72773pjb.103.1628709273453; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 12:14:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c090:400::5:69c0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u3sm310665pfn.76.2021.08.11.12.14.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 11 Aug 2021 12:14:33 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 09:14:28 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH block-5.14] Revert "block/mq-deadline: Add cgroup support" Message-ID: References: <035f8334-3b69-667d-be91-92dcab9dc887@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <035f8334-3b69-667d-be91-92dcab9dc887@acm.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org Hello, Bart. On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 11:49:10AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > Agreed that I should have Cc-ed you on the cgroup patches. But where were > you while my mq-deadline patch series was out for review? The first version > of that patch series was published on May 27 and the patch series was merged > on June 21 so there was almost one month time to post review feedback. Regardless of where I've been, I can't really review things which don't show up in my radar. The patches didn't even cc cgroups mailing list. How would I know that I needed to review the patches? > Additionally, the above description is not very helpful. If it is not > allowed to add custom elements by adding more pd_stat_fn callbacks, why does > that callback even exist? Why does the cgroup core not complain if a new > policy is registered that defines a pd_stat_fn callback? That part of the comment was on the specific fomatting that you used. cgroup interface files follow a few styles to stay consistent and ease parsing. Please refer to Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst. > You write that this isn't the right way to collect per cgroup stats. What is > the "right way"? Has this been documented somewhere? Well, there's nothing specific to mq-deadline or any other elevator or controller about the stats that your patch collected and showed. That seems like a pretty straight forward sign that it likely doens't belong there. Thanks. -- tejun