> I'm not convinced it's the domain of an IO scheduler to be involved, > rather than it being explicit UX intended by the desktop environment. > Seems to me the desktop environment is in a better position to know > what users expect. Well wouldn't bfq just be enforcing the bandwidth weights, if any, that were explicitly set in the various groups? If something is already creating and modifying control groups, then that something should have total control over setting the bandwidth weights. It's not obvious to me how the IO scheduler would be bypassing or otherwise ignoring whatever manages control groups. It's also not clear to me how anything except an IO scheduler would be able to directly control how device bandwidth is shared. _______________________________________________ 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
