[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161005131218.GB17339@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:12:18 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...more.it>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Kernel-team@...com,
jmoyer@...hat.com, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 00/11] block-throttle: add .high limit
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:37:00PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
[..]
> Anyway, to avoid going on with trying speculations and arguments, let
> me retry with a practical proposal. BFQ is out there, free. Let's
> just test, measure and check whether we have already a solution to
> the problems you/we are still trying to solve in Linux.
Hi Paolo,
Does BFQ implementaiton scale for fast storage devices using blk-mq
interface. We will want to make sure that locking and other overhead of
BFQ is very minimal so that overall throughput does not suffer.
Vivek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists