Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1592786
| 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 |
> 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 | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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