[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140604145829.GF5004@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 10:58:29 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...more.it>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>,
Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@...il.com>,
Paolo Valente <posta_paolo@...oo.it>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC - TAKE TWO - 00/12] New version of the BFQ I/O
Scheduler
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 07:53:30AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 10:50:53AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hmmm... the biggest thing is ioscheds. They heavily rely on being
> > strongly synchronized and are pretty important for rotating rusts.
> > Maybe they can be made to work with blk-mq by forcing single queue or
> > something but do we wnat that?
>
> Jens is planning to add an (optional) I/O scheduler to blk-mq, and
> that is indeed required for proper disk support. I don't think there
> even is a need to limit it to a single queue technically, although
> devices that support multiple queues are unlikely to need I/O
> scheduling.
I think what Jens is planning is something really minimal. Things
like [cb]fq heavily depend on the old block infrastructure. I don't
know. Maybe they can be merged in time but I'm not quite sure we'd
have enough pressure to actually do that. Host-granular switching
should be good enough, I guess.
Thanks.
--
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