On 2016-10-06 07:03, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:04:41AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I get that bfq can be a good compromise on most desktop workloads and
behave reasonably well for some server workloads with the slice
expiration mechanism but it really isn't an IO resource partitioning
mechanism.
Not just desktops, also Android phones.
So why not have BFQ as a separate scheduling policy upstream,
alongside CFQ, deadline and noop?
Right.
We're already doing the per-usecase Kconfig thing for preemption.
But maybe somebody already hates that and want to get rid of it,
I don't know.
Hannes also suggested going back to making BFQ a separate scheduler
rather than replacing CFQ earlier, pointing out that it mitigates
against the risks of changing CFQ substantially at this point (which
seems to be the biggest issue here).
ISTR that the original argument for this approach essentially amounted
to: 'If it's so much better, why do we need both?'.
Such an argument is valid only if the new design is better in all
respects (which there isn't sufficient information to decide in this
case), or the negative aspects are worth the improvements (which is too
workload specific to decide for something like this).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
