> Il giorno 25 feb 2017, alle ore 19:52, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > 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. > ok >> 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. > Done, but the last deadlock issue shows up again :( To help you get context, I'm going to reply to the email in which your sent the patch that solved it. > 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. > Of course. > 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. > I was about to to submit, but bumped into the above regression. Thanks, Paolo > -- > Jens Axboe >
