On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:38 PM Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:01 PM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783 >> >> The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora, >> mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadline scheduler >> rather than either none or bfq. >> >> It may be true most folks with NVMe won't see anything bad with none, >> but those who have heavier IO workloads are likely to be better off >> with mq-deadline. > > > How would one go about forcing the scheduler as to experiment to see if there is any perceived difference between them? # echo 'mq-deadline' > /sys/block/mmcblk0/queue/scheduler # cat /sys/block/mmcblk0/queue/scheduler I expect none and mq-deadline come up about the same unless you're doing concurrent heavy IO tasks, and in that case good chance one of them gets IO starved if you use none. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
