On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 19:04 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 11:14:15AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > So, yeah, the right fix would be using elv_former/latter_request() > > > instead. Maybe we should strip out rqhash altogether and change > > > elevator handle everything? I don't know. I'll prepare a different > > > fix patch soon. > > > > So not allow merge from two cfq queues strictly? This will impact > > performance. I don't know how important the strict isolation is. we even > > allow two cfq queues merge to improve performance. > > That's how cfq has behaved before this recent plug merge breakage and > IIRC why the cooperating queue thing is there. If you want to change > the behavior, that should be an explicit separate patch. My point is both cooperating merge and the plug merge of different cfq are merge, no reason we allow one but disallow the other. plug merge isn't a breakage to me. Thanks, Shaohua -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
