On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 03:42:57PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:46:28AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >> > [SECOND TAKE, with just the name of one of the tester fixed] >> > >> > Hi, >> > while testing the read-write unfairness issues reported by Mel, I >> > found BFQ failing to guarantee good responsiveness against heavy >> > random sync writes in the background, i.e., multiple writers doing >> > random writes and systematic fdatasync [1]. The failure was caused by >> > three related bugs, because of which BFQ failed to guarantee to >> > high-weight processes the expected fraction of the throughput. >> > >> >> Queued on top of Ming's most recent series even though that's still a work >> in progress. I should know in a few days how things stand. >> > > The problems with parallel heavy writers seem to have disappeared with this > series. There are still revisions taking place on Ming's to overall setting > of legacy vs mq is still a work in progress but this series looks good. Hi Mel and Paolo, BTW, no actual functional change in V4. Also could you guys provide one tested-by since looks you are using it in your test? Thanks, Ming Lei
