> Il giorno 03 mag 2017, alle ore 11:16, Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > 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-. > The logic here, as proposed by Jens, is not to add the mq tag when there is no risk of ambiguity (such as between deadline and mq-deadline). I'm open to any sensible choice. Thanks, Paolo > -- > Markus
