On 03/02/2017 03:15 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: > >> 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. OK, I got that sent to you. When you have tested it, just add it as a prep patch in your series. If it works for you, then let me know and I'll add your Tested-by: to that patch and post it for more thorough review. -- Jens Axboe
