On 02/13/2017 02:09 PM, Paolo Valente wrote: > >> Il giorno 07 feb 2017, alle ore 18:24, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have finally pushed here [1] the current WIP branch of bfq for >> blk-mq, which I have tentatively named bfq-mq. >> >> This branch *IS NOT* meant for merging into mainline and contain code >> that mau easily violate code style, and not only, in many >> places. Commits implement the following main steps: >> 1) Add the last version of bfq for blk >> 2) Clone bfq source files into identical bfq-mq source files >> 3) Modify bfq-mq files to get a working version of bfq for blk-mq >> (cgroups support not yet functional) >> >> In my intentions, the main goals of this branch are: >> >> 1) Show, as soon as I could, the changes I made to let bfq-mq comply >> with blk-mq-sched framework. I though this could be particularly >> useful for Jens, being BFQ identical to CFQ in terms of hook >> interfaces and io-context handling, and almost identical in terms >> request-merging. >> >> 2) Enable people to test this first version bfq-mq. Code is purposely >> overfull of log messages and invariant checks that halt the system on >> failure (lock assertions, BUG_ONs, ...). >> >> To make it easier to revise commits, I'm sending the patches that >> transform bfq into bfq-mq (last four patches in the branch [1]). They >> work on two files, bfq-mq-iosched.c and bfq-mq.h, which, at the >> beginning, are just copies of bfq-iosched.c and bfq.h. >> > > Hi, > this is just to inform that, as I just wrote to Bart, I have rebase > the branch [1] against the current content of for-4.11/next. > > Jens, Omar, did you find the time to have a look at the main commits > or to run some test? I only looked at the core change you proposed for passing in the bio as well, and Omar fixed up the icq exit part and I also applied that patch. I haven't look at any of the bfq-mq patches at all yet. Not sure what I can do with those, I don't think those are particularly useful to anyone but you. Might make more sense to post the conversion for review as a whole. -- Jens Axboe
