Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

> Il giorno 29 ott 2016, alle ore 16:12, Jens Axboe ha > scritto: > > On 10/28/2016 11:38 PM, Paolo Valente wrote: >> >>> Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 18:12, Jens Axboe ha >>> scritto: >>> >>> On 10/26/2016 10:04 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: > Il

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On 10/28/2016 11:38 PM, Paolo Valente wrote: Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 18:12, Jens Axboe ha scritto: On 10/26/2016 10:04 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 17:32, Jens Axboe ha scritto: On 10/26/2016 09:29 AM, Christoph

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On 10/28/16 22:38, Paolo Valente wrote: > Then, assuming that this solution may be of general interest, and that > BFQ benefits convinced you a little bit too, may I get significant > collaboration/help on implementing this infrastructure? If so, Jens > and all possibly interested parties, could

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

> Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 18:12, Jens Axboe ha > scritto: > > On 10/26/2016 10:04 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: >> >>> Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 17:32, Jens Axboe ha >>> scritto: >>> >>> On 10/26/2016 09:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:32:21AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: >> So I'm not just complaining by the way, I'm trying to fix this. Also >> Bartlomiej from Samsung has done some stabs at switching MMC/SD >> to blk-mq. I

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/28/2016 03:32 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> >> This is without using Bartlomiej's clever hack to pretend we have >> 2 elements in the HW queue though. His early tests indicate that >> it doesn't help much: the performance

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:17:01AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/28/2016 12:36 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > You have been pushing Paolo in different directions throughout the > > years with his work in BFQ, wasting lots of his time/effort. > I have not. Various entities have advised Paolo

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Friday, October 28, 2016 9:30:07 AM CEST Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/28/2016 03:32 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > The patch to enable MQ looks like this: > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-stericsson.git/commit/?h=mmc-mq=8f79b527e2e854071d8da019451da68d4753f71d > > BTW,

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

Hi, On Friday, October 28, 2016 09:30:07 AM Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/28/2016 03:32 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > The patch to enable MQ looks like this: > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-stericsson.git/commit/?h=mmc-mq=8f79b527e2e854071d8da019451da68d4753f71d > >

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On 10/28/2016 03:32 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: The patch to enable MQ looks like this: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-stericsson.git/commit/?h=mmc-mq=8f79b527e2e854071d8da019451da68d4753f71d BTW, another viable "hack" for the depth issue would be to expose more than

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On 10/28/2016 12:36 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: [...] Moreover, I am still trying to understand what's the big deal to why you say no to BFQ as a legacy scheduler. Ideally it shouldn't cause you any maintenance burden and it doesn't make the removal of the legacy blk layer any more difficult,

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > I don't think that's an accurate statement. In terms of coverage, most >> > drivers do support blk-mq. Anything SCSI, nvme, virtio-blk, SATA runs on >> > (or can run on) top of blk-mq. >> >> Well, I just used "git grep" and

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 8:13:08 PM CEST Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 27 October 2016 at 19:43, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 10/27/2016 11:32 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >>> > >>> I'm hesistant to add a new scheduler because it's very easy to add, very > >>>

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> blk-mq has evolved to support a variety of devices, there's nothing >> special about mmc that can't work well within that framework. > >

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Thu 27-10-16 10:26:18, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/27/2016 03:26 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > >On Wed 26-10-16 10:12:38, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>On 10/26/2016 10:04 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: > >>> > Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 17:32, Jens Axboe ha > scritto: > > On

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

[...] > >> Moreover, I am still trying to understand what's the big deal to why >> you say no to BFQ as a legacy scheduler. Ideally it shouldn't cause >> you any maintenance burden and it doesn't make the removal of the >> legacy blk layer any more difficult, right? > > > Not sure I can state it

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On 10/27/2016 01:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: [...] Instead, what I can tell, as we have been looking into converting mmc (which I maintains) and that is indeed a significant amount of work. We will need to rip out all of the mmc request management, and most likely we also need to extend the

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 08:41:27PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > Plus the benchmarking to verify that it works well of course, especially > initially where it'll also be a new queue infrastructure as well as the > blk-mq conversion itself. It does feel like something that's going to > take at least

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:21:06PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/27/2016 12:13 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > I can imagine, that it's not always a straight forward "convert to blk > > mq" patch for every block device driver. > Well, I've actually done a few conversions, and it's not difficult at

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

[...] >> Instead, what I can tell, as we have been looking into converting mmc >> (which I maintains) and that is indeed a significant amount of work. >> We will need to rip out all of the mmc request management, and most >> likely we also need to extend the blkmq interface - as to be able to >>

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On 10/27/2016 11:32 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: [...] I'm hesistant to add a new scheduler because it's very easy to add, very difficult to get rid of. If we do add BFQ as a legacy scheduler now, it'll take us years and years to get rid of it again. We should be moving towards LESS moving parts in

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

[...] > > I'm hesistant to add a new scheduler because it's very easy to add, very > difficult to get rid of. If we do add BFQ as a legacy scheduler now, > it'll take us years and years to get rid of it again. We should be > moving towards LESS moving parts in the legacy path, not more. Jens, I

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On 10/27/2016 03:26 AM, Jan Kara wrote: On Wed 26-10-16 10:12:38, Jens Axboe wrote: On 10/26/2016 10:04 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 17:32, Jens Axboe ha scritto: On 10/26/2016 09:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On 10/27/2016 08:34 AM, Grozdan wrote: On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Jan Kara wrote: On Wed 26-10-16 10:12:38, Jens Axboe wrote: On 10/26/2016 10:04 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 17:32, Jens Axboe ha scritto: On 10/26/2016

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 26-10-16 10:12:38, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 10/26/2016 10:04 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: >> > >> >>Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 17:32, Jens Axboe ha >> >>scritto: >> >> >> >>On 10/26/2016 09:29 AM,

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Wed 26-10-16 10:12:38, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/26/2016 10:04 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: > > > >>Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 17:32, Jens Axboe ha > >>scritto: > >> > >>On 10/26/2016 09:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >>>On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:13:07PM +0200, Arnd

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On 10/26/2016 10:04 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: Il giorno 26 ott 2016, alle ore 17:32, Jens Axboe ha scritto: On 10/26/2016 09:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:13:07PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: The question to ask first is whether to actually have

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On 10/26/2016 09:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:13:07PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: The question to ask first is whether to actually have pluggable schedulers on blk-mq at all, or just have one that is meant to do the right thing in every case (and possibly can be

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:13:07PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > The question to ask first is whether to actually have pluggable > schedulers on blk-mq at all, or just have one that is meant to > do the right thing in every case (and possibly can be bypassed > completely). That would be my

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 8:05:11 AM CEST Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 10/26/2016 04:34 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 26-10-16 03:19:03, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> Just as last time: > >> > >> big NAK for introducing giant new infrastructure like a new I/O scheduler > >> for the legacy

Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

Just as last time: big NAK for introducing giant new infrastructure like a new I/O scheduler for the legacy request structure. Please direct your engergy towards blk-mq instead. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to

[PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler

Hi, this new patch series turns back to the initial approach, i.e., it adds BFQ as an extra scheduler, instead of replacing CFQ with BFQ. This patch series also contains all the improvements and bug fixes recommended by Tejun [5], plus new features of BFQ-v8r5. Details about old and new features