linux-kernel - Re: Switching to MQ by default may generate some bug reports

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: <20170803104657.eyxuona33ar5cpp4@techsingularity.net>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2017 11:46:57 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Switching to MQ by default may generate some bug reports

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:44:06AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> > That series is dealing with problems with legacy-deadline vs mq-none where
> > as the bulk of the problems reported in this mail are related to
> > legacy-CFQ vs mq-BFQ.
> > 
> 
> Out-of-curiosity: you get no regression with mq-none or mq-deadline?
> 

I didn't test mq-none as the underlying storage was not fast enough to
make a legacy-noop vs mq-none meaningful. legacy-deadline vs mq-deadline
did show small regressions on some workloads but not as dramatic and
small enough that it would go unmissed in some cases.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs