Re: Playing with BFQ

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2017.05.03 at 10:00 +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2017.05.02 at 14:07 +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> >> <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On 2017.05.02 at 09:54 +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> I want to play with BFQ.
> >> >>
> >> >> My base is block-next as of 28-Apr-2017.
> >> [...]
> >> >> Not sure if the attached patches make sense (right now).
> >> >
> >> > No, it doesn't make sense at all.
> >>
> >> Hmm, I looked at 4.11.0-v8r11 and 0001 has exactly what my 2 patches do :-).
> >
> > BFQ started as a conventional scheduler. But because mq is the way of
> > the future it was ported before it was accepted into mainline.
> >
> 
> I am still playing and want to do my own experiences with BFQ.
> 
> Not sure if FIO is a good testcase-tool here.
> 
> So if MQ is the way why isn't the Kconfig called CONFIG_MQ_IOSCHED_BFQ
> according to CONFIG_MQ_IOSCHED_DEADLINE?

Good point. The current naming is confusing.

Also:
 # cat /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
 mq-deadline [kyber] bfq none

These should all be prefixed with mq-.

-- 
Markus



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux