[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160311111636.GB3450@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 03:16:36 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
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 Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 01:10:31PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> 1. This all started long before blk-mq hit mainline.
Whoe cares? :)
> 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
There is no ambiguouity. You clearly named a few ones that aren't
converted, but also a lot of make_request_fn based drivers which don't
support any I/O scheduler.
But that whole point is that anything actively developed should move
over.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists