On 3/24/21 4:10 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > On 3/7/21 8:26 PM, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote: > >> Hmmm NACK. >> >> CFQ and BFQ are completely different beasts. >> >> If you are going to tune BFQ to match old CFQ behaviour (somehow; I >> don't know why one would do this, how one would do this and whether it >> is possible at all), you for sure have enough time to fix your old udev >> rules and scripts. >> >> If you are just tolerating default BFQ behaviour, you should explicitly >> acknowledge it by amending your rules and scripts. For personal systems >> this is not a big deal. For enterprise systems you better do it NOW so >> that another person that comes to work on those systems in 10 years >> after you resign knows what and why was done. >> >> If you are just lazy (no offence! I don't know your real intention >> here), I'm not sure we are going to hide such an indifference behind >> another aliasing kludge. >> >> Thanks. >> > > You are writing a lot, and say nothing. > > bfq is the natural choice coming from cfq. There is NO other option. > > Still waiting... for a valid *technical* response against my change. Let's lay off the aggression a bit, it's not helpful. They are two very different schedulers. Yes, they support some of the same options, but they really have nothing in common outside of that. On top of that, it's also very late to introduce a change like that, it should've been done with the introduction of it. > Or do you prefer to apply the below patch?. Not a valid example, as mq-deadline and deadline are identical, one just supports multiple queues. -- Jens Axboe
