linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: BFQ default for single queue devices

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: <1538578732.205649.0.camel@acm.org>
Date:   Wed, 03 Oct 2018 07:58:52 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        "aherrmann@...e.com" <aherrmann@...e.com>,
        "mgorman@...e.com" <mgorman@...e.com>,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@...aro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "bfq-iosched@...glegroups.com" <bfq-iosched@...glegroups.com>,
        "oleksandr@...alenko.name" <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: BFQ default for single queue devices

On Wed, 2018-10-03 at 05:51 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 07:42:15AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> > Of note also is that host-managed like sequential zone devices are also likely
> > to show up soon with the work being done in the NVMe standard on the new "Zoned
> > namespace" feature proposal. These devices will also require a scheduler like
> > mq-deadline guaranteeing per-zone in-order delivery of sequential write
> > requests. Looking only at the number of queues of the device is not enough to
> > choose the best (most reasonnable/appropriate) scheduler.
> 
> We actually have a plan to avoid the need for a non-reordering scheduler
> there (including a Linux prototype for it).  Lets see if it survives the
> committee.

Has the work with the T10 committee to standardize the SCSI equivalent of anonymous
writes already started?

Thanks,

Bart.