Hi,
在 2024/09/05 1:17, Bart Van Assche 写道:
On 9/3/24 7:45 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
在 2024/09/04 10:28, Bart Van Assche 写道:
On 9/3/24 6:32 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
We do have customers are using bfq in downstream kernels, and we are
still running lots of test for bfq.
It may take less time to add any missing functionality to another I/O
scheduler rather than to keep maintaining BFQ.
If Android device vendors would stop using BFQ, my job would become
easier.
I'm confused now, I think keep maintaining BFQ won't stop you from
adding new functionality to another scheduler, right? Is this something
that all scheduler have to support?
As long as the BFQ I/O scheduler does not get deprecated, there will be
Android device vendors that select it for their devices. BFQ bug reports
are either sent to one of my colleagues or to myself.
Then, you can share them to me now, I'll like to help.
For Android devices that use UFS storage, we noticed that the
mq-deadline scheduler is good enough. The device boot time is shorter
and I'm not aware of any significant differences in application startup
time.
We're using bfq for HDD, performance overhead in bfq is not less,
like you said, if bfq doen't show better results in UFS storage, and you
don't want to use the io control feature, you can choose not to use it,
however, remove bfq will be too aggressive.
Thanks,
Kuai
Thanks,
Bart.
.
