| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAOS58YOcciTFzYU9vsW2pnE=dbNo+rGz2XJ0Qjk4VHriNDw31g@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:22:24 -0800 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH block:for-3.3/core] cfq: merged request shouldn't jump to a different cfqq On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> wrote: >> That's how cfq has behaved before this recent plug merge breakage and >> IIRC why the cooperating queue thing is there. If you want to change >> the behavior, that should be an explicit separate patch. > My point is both cooperating merge and the plug merge of different cfq > are merge, no reason we allow one but disallow the other. plug merge > isn't a breakage to me. Isolation is pretty big deal for cfq and cross cfqq merging happening without cfq noticing it isn't gonna be helpful to the cause. Why don't we merge bio's across different cfqq's then? -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists