[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <edfe3c80-c359-44a0-889c-1a879532175a@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 07:55:01 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
jack@...e.cz, tj@...nel.org, josef@...icpanda.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
mauro.andreolini@...more.it, avanzini.arianna@...il.com
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com,
"yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-6.12 0/4] block, bfq: fix corner cases related to bfqq
merging
On 9/3/24 8:45 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ? 2024/09/04 10:28, Bart Van Assche ??:
>> On 9/3/24 6:32 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>> We do have customers are using bfq in downstream kernels, and we are
>>> still running lots of test for bfq.
>>
>> It may take less time to add any missing functionality to another I/O
>> scheduler rather than to keep maintaining BFQ.
>>
>> If Android device vendors would stop using BFQ, my job would become
>> easier.
>
> I'm confused now, I think keep maintaining BFQ won't stop you from
> adding new functionality to another scheduler, right? Is this something
> that all scheduler have to support?
With fear of putting words into Bart's mouth, perhaps he's saying that
the BFQ is a bit of a mess and it'd be nice if we had a cleaner version
of some of the features it brings. But having someone actually maintain
it and perhaps clean it up a bit and reduce the complexity would be a
good thing. Really it's the authors choice on where to best spend his or
her time.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists