> Il giorno 14 feb 2017, alle ore 16:16, Jens Axboe ha
> scritto:
>
> On 02/14/2017 01:14 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>
>>> Il giorno 14 feb 2017, alle ore 00:10, Jens Axboe ha
>>> scritto:
>>>
>>> On 02/13/2017 03:28 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 02/13/2017 03:09 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
>>>
On 02/14/2017 01:14 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>
>> Il giorno 14 feb 2017, alle ore 00:10, Jens Axboe ha
>> scritto:
>>
>> On 02/13/2017 03:28 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 02/13/2017 03:09 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:01:07PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
> If, at boo
On 02/13/2017 11:58 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 02/13/2017 11:28 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 02/13/2017 03:09 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:01:07PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
If, at boot, a legacy I/O scheduler is chosen for a device using blk-mq,
or, viceve
> Il giorno 14 feb 2017, alle ore 00:10, Jens Axboe ha
> scritto:
>
> On 02/13/2017 03:28 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 02/13/2017 03:09 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:01:07PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
If, at boot, a legacy I/O scheduler is chosen for a device usin
On 02/14/2017 08:07 AM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 07:58:22AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> While we're at the topic:
>>
>> Can't we use the same names for legacy and mq scheduler?
>> It's quite an unnecessary complication to have
>> 'noop', 'deadline', and 'cfq' for legacy,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 07:58:22AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> While we're at the topic:
>
> Can't we use the same names for legacy and mq scheduler?
> It's quite an unnecessary complication to have
> 'noop', 'deadline', and 'cfq' for legacy, but 'none' and 'mq-deadline'
> for mq. If we could
On 02/13/2017 11:28 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 02/13/2017 03:09 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:01:07PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> If, at boot, a legacy I/O scheduler is chosen for a device using blk-mq,
>>> or, viceversa, a blk-mq scheduler is chosen for a device using
On 02/13/2017 03:28 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 02/13/2017 03:09 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:01:07PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> If, at boot, a legacy I/O scheduler is chosen for a device using blk-mq,
>>> or, viceversa, a blk-mq scheduler is chosen for a device using
On 02/13/2017 03:09 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:01:07PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> If, at boot, a legacy I/O scheduler is chosen for a device using blk-mq,
>> or, viceversa, a blk-mq scheduler is chosen for a device using blk, then
>> that scheduler is set and initiali
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:01:07PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
> If, at boot, a legacy I/O scheduler is chosen for a device using blk-mq,
> or, viceversa, a blk-mq scheduler is chosen for a device using blk, then
> that scheduler is set and initialized without any check, driving the
> system into a
On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 22:01 +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
> -static struct elevator_type *elevator_get(const char *name, bool try_loading)
> +static struct elevator_type *elevator_get(const char *name, bool try_loading,
> + bool mq_ops)
Please choose a better na
11 matches
Mail list logo
