On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:21:06PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/27/2016 12:13 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > I can imagine, that it's not always a straight forward "convert to blk > > mq" patch for every block device driver. > Well, I've actually done a few conversions, and it's not difficult at > all. The grunt of the work is usually around converting to using some of > the blk-mq features for parts of the driver that it had implemented > privately, like timeout handling, etc. Plus the benchmarking to verify that it works well of course, especially initially where it'll also be a new queue infrastructure as well as the blk-mq conversion itself. It does feel like something that's going to take at least a couple of kernel releases to get through. > > > > 3) > > > > While we work on scheduling in blkmq (at least for single queue > > > > devices), it's of course important that we set high goals. Having BFQ > > > > (and the other schedulers) in the legacy blk, provides a good > > > > reference for what we could aim for. > > > Sure, but you don't need BFQ to be included in the kernel for that. > > Perhaps not. > > But does that mean, you expect Paolo to maintain an up to date BFQ > > tree for you? > I don't expect anything. If Paolo or others want to compare with BFQ on > the legacy IO path, then they can do that however way they want. If you > (and others) want to have that reference point, it's up to you how to > accomplish that. I think there's also value in having improvements there for people who benefit from them while queue infrastructure for blk-mq is being worked on.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
