On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> wrote:
> I get that bfq can be a good compromise on most desktop workloads and
> behave reasonably well for some server workloads with the slice
> expiration mechanism but it really isn't an IO resource partitioning
> mechanism.
Not just desktops, also Android phones.
So why not have BFQ as a separate scheduling policy upstream,
alongside CFQ, deadline and noop?
I understand the CPU scheduler people's position that they want
one scheduler for everyone's everyday loads (except RT and
SCHED_DEADLINE) and I guess that is the source of the highlander
"there can be only one" argument, but note this:
kernel/Kconfig.preempt:
config PREEMPT_NONE
bool "No Forced Preemption (Server)"
config PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
bool "Voluntary Kernel Preemption (Desktop)"
config PREEMPT
bool "Preemptible Kernel (Low-Latency Desktop)"
We're already doing the per-usecase Kconfig thing for preemption.
But maybe somebody already hates that and want to get rid of it,
I don't know.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
