[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] io-controller: Use names rather than major:minor
    On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Chad Talbott <> wrote:
    > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Vivek Goyal <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:31:41AM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
    >>> +int blk_lookup_devname(dev_t devt, char *name)
    >>> +{
    > [ snip... loop through all block devices for devt ...snip ]
    >>> So we can keep dev_t in blkio layer, and export to user a device name by calling
    >>> this function. Also, we retrive device number by calling blk_lookup_devt().
    >>> This change might keep things much simple. Jens, do you have any thoughts?
    >> I agree with Gui that lets keep the dev_t the core in blkio layer. Keeping
    >> a pointer to gendisk in request queue is becoming little messy.
    > Agreed on leaving gendisk pointer out of request_queue.  In doing
    > further investigation, I've found that it's up to the driver to
    > maintain the association between gendisk and request_queue, and some
    > drivers put multiple gendisk behind a single request_queue, so the
    > back pointer would be ill-specified.
    >> But if that does not work for you, then I would also like to keep things
    >> simple and translate dev_t to diskname during read routine. Similiarly,
    >> while somebody is putting policy, use blk_lookup_devt().
    > I like the simplicity of blk_lookup_devt(), but I don't like the idea
    > of iterating through all block devices on every lookup of the name.
    > Perhaps we could cache the name somewhere?
    > Actually, the name is the name of the *queue* (or the key in
    > blk-cgroup), because as I mentioned above there can be a many to one
    > relationship between disks and queues in general.
    > The more I think about it, the more it seems to make sense to extend
    > blkio_policy_ops to include a function to get the name of the key.
    > blk-cgroup makes no current use of the dev, except to invent a name
    > for the request_queue whose policy is being set or printed.  It could
    > be argued that the thing being scheduled has a better idea of the name
    > of that thing.
    >> But this will lead to issue of how do you now display both device number
    >> and disk name in the output. May be following.
    >> major:minor  diskname  data
    >> I am not sure if people are fond of multiple values in a single file. At
    >> the same time for setting the rules or deleting the rules, it will make
    >> syntax complicated/confusing. Also will require breaking ABI for existing
    >> blkio.time, blkio.sectors, blkio.dequeue files.
    > I don't like this, either.  It breaks ABI and is more confusing for users.
    >> So I would prefer to keep the major/minor number based interface for
    >> follwing reasons.
    >> - Chaning it now breaks ABI.
    >> - Other cgroup controller "device" is also using major/minor number based
    >>  interface for device access policy. So it is consistent with other
    >>  controller.
    > Which controllers are these?
    >> - Displaying both device major/minor and diskname is an option but that
    >>  makes the file format syntax little complicated and new rule setting
    >>  or removoal confusing.
    > A few messages back you mentioned that you preferred device names
    > because they would be better for users of the system.  If there was a
    > simple implementation, would you still be behind a new name-based
    > interface?  We could go that direction and maintain ABI by deprecating
    > current interface and making a new interface with names.
    > If you can't tell, I'm a big fan of using the name! :)  It's *much*
    > more consistent with the interfaces in /sys.

    I agree with Chad here. The major/minor number interface to me seems
    like a departure from convention as /proc/diskstat, /sys/block all use
    the device names at the kernel-user interface. About deprecating the
    current ABI, we could do that but do we expect a lot of user tools to
    be built around this interface since the 2.6.33 release already?


    > Chad
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-03-27 00:25    [W:0.038 / U:4.788 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site