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
