Hello, On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:46:36AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > But blk-mq will potentially drive anything, so it might not be out of > the question with a more expensive scheduling variant, if it makes any > sense to do of course. At least until there's no more rotating stuff out > there :-). But it's not a priority at all to me yet. As long as we have > coexisting IO paths, it'd be trivial to select the needed one based on > the device characteristics.
Hmmm... yeah, moving rotating devices over to blk-mq doesn't really seem beneficial to me. I think there are fundamental behavioral differences for rotating rusts and newer solid state devices to share single code path for things like scheduling and selecting the appropriate path depending on the actual devices sounds like a much better plan even in the long term. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
