On 2017.05.03 at 10:00 +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf > <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > > On 2017.05.02 at 14:07 +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf > >> <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> 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
