On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:26:32AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 08:47:46AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > > And the passthrough case is special with users of that interface taking > > on a greater responsibility and generally want the kernel out of the > > way. I don't think anyone would purposefully run a tag intense workload > > through that engine at the same time as using a generic one with the > > scheduler. It definitely should still work, but it doesn't need to be > > fair, right? > > I guess it may work, but question is that what we can get from this kind > of big change? And I think this approach may be one following work if it is > proved as useful. I'm just trying to remove any need for side channels to bypass block layer functionality, like this one: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2023-April/039522.html
