linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 01/14] block, bfq: introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <91b856e8-2c14-00b6-fdd8-b9879b1b9952@kernel.dk>
Date:   Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:16:20 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>,
        Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@...il.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ulf.hansson@...aro.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/14] block, bfq: introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler
 as an extra scheduler

On 03/04/2017 09:01 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> We tag as v0 the version of BFQ containing only BFQ's engine plus
> hierarchical support. BFQ's engine is introduced by this commit, while
> hierarchical support is added by next commit. We use the v0 tag to
> distinguish this minimal version of BFQ from the versions containing
> also the features and the improvements added by next commits. BFQ-v0
> coincides with the version of BFQ submitted a few years ago [1], apart
> from the introduction of preemption, described below.
> 
> BFQ is a proportional-share I/O scheduler, whose general structure,
> plus a lot of code, are borrowed from CFQ.

I'll take a closer look at this in the coming week. But one quick
comment - don't default to BFQ. Both because it might not be fully
stable yet, and also because the performance limitation of it is
quite severe. Whereas deadline doesn't really hurt single queue
flash at all, BFQ will.

Generally, I think that sort of logic should go into a udev rule. If
a device is rotational it should default to BFQ once the dust has
settled.

-- 
Jens Axboe