Re: [PATCH] block: BFQ default for single queue devices

2018-10-05 Thread Paolo Valente
> Il giorno 05 ott 2018, alle ore 00:42, Bart Van Assche > ha scritto: > > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 22:39 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >> No, kernel build is, for evident reasons, one of the workloads I cared >> most about. Actually, I tried to focus on all my main >> kernel-development tasks, s

Re: [PATCH] block: BFQ default for single queue devices

2018-10-04 Thread Ulf Hansson
On 3 October 2018 at 19:34, Bryan Gurney wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Paolo Valente > wrote: >> >> >>> Il giorno 03 ott 2018, alle ore 10:28, Linus Walleij >>> ha scritto: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:42 AM Damien Le Moal wrote: >>> There is another class of outliers: ho

Re: [PATCH] block: BFQ default for single queue devices

2018-10-04 Thread Johannes Thumshirn
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 03:25:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 03-10-18 08:53:37, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:29 AM Paolo Valente > > wrote: > > > > > So, I do understand your need for conservativeness, but, after so much > > > evidence on single-queue devices, and so m

Re: [PATCH] block: BFQ default for single queue devices

2018-10-03 Thread Bart Van Assche
On Wed, 2018-10-03 at 17:55 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > The problem, in particular, is that bfq is a complex beast, fighting > against a jungle of I/O issues. You have to be really into bfq, even > to just know all of its features! This is a problem by itself. I don't know anyone who wants to h

Re: [PATCH] block: BFQ default for single queue devices

2018-10-03 Thread Linus Walleij
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:42 AM Damien Le Moal wrote: > There is another class of outliers: host-managed SMR disks (SATA and SCSI, > definitely single hw queue). For these, using mq-deadline is mandatory in many > cases in order to guarantee sequential write command delivery to the device > driver