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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1378242 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH RFC 09/22] block, cfq: replace CFQ with the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH RFC 09/22] block, cfq: replace CFQ with the BFQ-v0 I/O  scheduler Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-04-13 22:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH RFC 09/22] block, cfq: replace CFQ with the BFQ-v0 I/O  scheduler Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-04-14 07:10 +0200

#1378242 — Re: [PATCH RFC 09/22] block, cfq: replace CFQ with the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler

Hello, Christoph.

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 09:39:47AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 12:29:39AM +0700, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > I'm doing a summary of this discussion as a part of presenting
> > Linaro's involvement in Paolo's work. So I try to understand things.
> 
> Btw, can someone explain why you guys waste so much time hacking and
> arguing about a legacy codebase (old request code and I/O schedulers)
> that everyone would really like to see disappear.  Why don't you
> spend your time on blk-mq where you have an entirely clean slate
> for scheduling?

idk, are we gonna duplicate a full disk scheduler on blk-mq path?  I
think it'd be more sensible to make blk-mq call into the old elevator
path for scheduling IOs on rotating rusts.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1378479

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:54:22PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 09:39:47AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> > Btw, can someone explain why you guys waste so much time hacking and
> > arguing about a legacy codebase (old request code and I/O schedulers)
> > that everyone would really like to see disappear.  Why don't you
> > spend your time on blk-mq where you have an entirely clean slate
> > for scheduling?

> idk, are we gonna duplicate a full disk scheduler on blk-mq path?  I
> think it'd be more sensible to make blk-mq call into the old elevator
> path for scheduling IOs on rotating rusts.

It's not just rust, it's also lower end solid state devices.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web