[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161026113443.GA13587@quack2.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:34:43 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ulf.hansson@...aro.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
broonie@...nel.org, hare@...e.de, arnd@...db.de,
bart.vanassche@...disk.com, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
jack@...e.cz, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra
scheduler
On Wed 26-10-16 03:19:03, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Just as last time:
>
> big NAK for introducing giant new infrastructure like a new I/O scheduler
> for the legacy request structure.
>
> Please direct your engergy towards blk-mq instead.
Christoph, we will probably talk about this next week but IMO rotating
disks and SATA based SSDs are going to stay with us for another 15 years,
likely more. For them blk-mq is no win, relatively complex IO scheduling
like CFQ or BFQ does is a big win for them in some cases. So I think IO
scheduling (and thus place for something like BFQ) is going to stay with us
for quite a long time still. So are we going to add hooks in blk-mq to
support full-blown IO scheduling at least for single queue devices? Or how
else do we want to support that HW?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists