On 02/25/2017 10:44 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: > Hi, > I've just completed cgroups support, and I'd like to highlight the > main blk-mq issue that I have found along the way. I have pushed the > commit that completes the support for cgroups to the usual WIP branch > [1]. Before moving to this issue, I have preliminary question about > the scheduler name, since I'm about to start preparing the patch > series for submission. So far, I have used bfq-mq as a temporary > name. Are we fine with it, or should I change it, for example, to > just bfq? Jens? Just call it 'bfq', that doesn't conflict with anything that's in the kernel already. > I've found a sort of circular dependency in blk-mq, related to > scheduler initialization. To describe both the issue and how I've > addressed it, I'm pasting the message of the new commit. Rebase your patches on top of Linus current master, some of them will need to change and some can be dropped. And disentangle it completely from the old bfq, I don't want to see nasty stuff like includes of .c files with prior defines modifying behavior of functions. When that's done, get it posted for review asap. I would imagine we will go through a few postings and review cycles, and if we're targeting 4.12 with this, then we should get the ball rolling on that side. -- Jens Axboe
