On 12/13/2016 09:15 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: > >> Il giorno 13 dic 2016, alle ore 16:17, Jens Axboe <ax...@fb.com> ha scritto: >> >> On Tue, Dec 13 2016, Paolo Valente wrote: >>> >>>> Il giorno 08 dic 2016, alle ore 21:13, Jens Axboe <ax...@fb.com> ha >>>> scritto: >>>> >>>> As a followup to this posting from yesterday: >>>> >>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=148115232806065&w=2 >>>> >>>> this is version 2. I wanted to post a new one fairly quickly, as there >>>> ended up being a number of potential crashes in v1. This one should be >>>> solid, I've run mq-deadline on both NVMe and regular rotating storage, >>>> and we handle the various merging cases correctly. >>>> >>>> You can download it from git as well: >>>> >>>> git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block blk-mq-sched.2 >>>> >>>> Note that this is based on for-4.10/block, which is in turn based on >>>> v4.9-rc1. I suggest pulling it into my for-next branch, which would >>>> then merge nicely with 'master' as well. >>>> >>> >>> Hi Jens, >>> this is just to tell you that I have finished running some extensive >>> tests on this patch series (throughput, responsiveness, low latency >>> for soft real time). No regression w.r.t. blk detected, and no >>> crashes or other anomalies. >>> >>> Starting to work on BFQ port. Please be patient with my little >>> expertise on mq environment, and with my next silly questions! >> >> No worries, ask away if you have questions. As you might have seen, it's >> still a little bit of a moving target, but it's getting closer every >> day. I'll post a v3 later today hopefully that will be a good fix point >> for you. I'll need to add the io context setup etc, that's not there >> yet, as only cfq/bfq uses that. >> > > You anticipated the question that was worrying me more, how to handle > iocontexts :) I'll go on studying your patches while waiting for this > (last, right?) missing piece for bfq.
It's the last missing larger piece. We probably have a few hooks that BFQ/CFQ currently uses that aren't wired up yet in the elevator_ops for mq, so you'll probably have to do those as you go. I can take a look, but I would prefer if they be done one a as-needed basis. Perhaps we can get rid of some of them. > Should you implement a modified version of cfq, to test your last > extensions, I would of course appreciate very much to have a look at > it (if you are willing to share it, of course). I most likely won't do that, as it would be a waste of time on my end. If you need help with the BFQ parts, I'll help you out. -- Jens Axboe
