[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56D9CF97.7080005@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 13:10:31 -0500
From: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@...il.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>,
Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@...il.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 09/22] block, cfq: replace CFQ with the BFQ-v0 I/O
scheduler
On 2016-03-04 12:39, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 12:29:39AM +0700, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> Hi Tejun,
>>
>> 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?
>
1. This all started long before blk-mq hit mainline.
2. There's still a decent amount of block drivers that don't support
blk-mq. Last time I looked (around the time 4.4 came out), I saw the
following that either obviously don't support it, or are ambiguous as to
whether they support it or not. Here's a list of just the ones I know
are being used on existing systems running relatively recent kernel
versions, not including any of the MTD stuff:
* fd
* MD
* bcache
* mmcblk
* nbd
* dasd
* drbd
* rbd
* aoe
* xvd (I know there were patches for this floating around, but I
never saw if they got merged or not)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists