Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1592786

Re: [PATCH RFC 01/14] block, bfq: introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

From Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH RFC 01/14] block, bfq: introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler
Date 2017-03-05 17:10 +0100
Message-ID <thGTo-2FR-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <thkpQ-3cO-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <thkpR-3cO-55@gated-at.bofh.it> <thGgF-2be-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


> Il giorno 05 mar 2017, alle ore 16:16, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> ha scritto:
> 
> On 03/04/2017 09:01 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> We tag as v0 the version of BFQ containing only BFQ's engine plus
>> hierarchical support. BFQ's engine is introduced by this commit, while
>> hierarchical support is added by next commit. We use the v0 tag to
>> distinguish this minimal version of BFQ from the versions containing
>> also the features and the improvements added by next commits. BFQ-v0
>> coincides with the version of BFQ submitted a few years ago [1], apart
>> from the introduction of preemption, described below.
>> 
>> BFQ is a proportional-share I/O scheduler, whose general structure,
>> plus a lot of code, are borrowed from CFQ.
> 
> I'll take a closer look at this in the coming week.

ok

> But one quick
> comment - don't default to BFQ. Both because it might not be fully
> stable yet, and also because the performance limitation of it is
> quite severe. Whereas deadline doesn't really hurt single queue
> flash at all, BFQ will.
> 

Ok, sorry.  I was doubtful on what to do, but, to not bother you on
every details, I went for setting it as default, because I thought
people would have preferred to test it, even from boot, in this
preliminary stage.  I reset elevator.c in the submission, unless you
want me to do it even before receiving your and others' reviews.

> Generally, I think that sort of logic should go into a udev rule. If
> a device is rotational it should default to BFQ once the dust has
> settled.
> 

ok

Looking forward for your feedback,
Paolo

> -- 
> Jens Axboe
> 

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH RFC 00/14] Add the BFQ I/O Scheduler to blk-mq Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> - 2017-03-04 17:10 +0100
  Re: [PATCH RFC 01/14] block, bfq: introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler  as an extra scheduler Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2017-03-05 16:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH RFC 01/14] block, bfq: introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> - 2017-03-05 17:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH RFC 01/14] block, bfq: introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler  as an extra scheduler Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2017-03-06 23:30 +0100
  Re: [PATCH RFC 00/14] Add the BFQ I/O Scheduler to blk-mq Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> - 2017-03-06 08:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH RFC 10/14] block, bfq: add Early Queue Merge (EQM) Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2017-03-07 20:40 +0100
  Re: [PATCH RFC 01/14] block, bfq: introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler  as an extra scheduler Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2017-03-08 00:30 +0100

csiph-web