On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:38 PM Richard Shaw <hobbes1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:01 PM Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783
>>
>> The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora,
>> mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadline scheduler
>> rather than either none or bfq.
>>
>> It may be true most folks with NVMe won't see anything bad with none,
>> but those who have heavier IO workloads are likely to be better off
>> with mq-deadline.
>
>
> How would one go about forcing the scheduler as to experiment to see if there 
> is any perceived difference between them?

# echo 'mq-deadline' > /sys/block/mmcblk0/queue/scheduler
# cat /sys/block/mmcblk0/queue/scheduler

I expect none and mq-deadline come up about the same unless you're
doing concurrent heavy IO tasks, and in that case good chance one of
them gets IO starved if you use none.


-- 
Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to