Re: Playing with BFQ

[Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>]

> Il giorno 16 mag 2017, alle ore 15:38, Sedat Dilek =
<sedat.dilek@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>=20
> [...]
>=20
>>>>> What about those two (Kconfig) patches which is in your current
>>>>> bfq-4.11.y patchset.
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> I'm not sure I fully understand the purpose of the two patches you
>>>> propose (in your following emails).  The first patch seems to move =
BFQ
>>>> config options to a different position in Kconfig.iosched, but the
>>>> position of those items should be irrelevant.  Am I missing =
something?
>>>> The second patch seems to have to do with configuration bits of bfq
>>>> for blk, yet such a bfq version is not available in mainline.
>>>>=20
>>>> In any case, for possible new submissions, you should inline your
>>>> patches.  For complete instructions on submitting patches, have a =
look
>>>> at Documentation/process/submitting-patches
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> All my testings was done with your patchset against Linux v4.11.y.
>>> You have the same kconfig/kbuild stuff in your 0001 patch [1], so =
:-)?
>>> What you have in 0001 is missing in Linux v4.12-rc1.
>>> Not sure if this is intended.
>>=20
>> 4.12-rc1 contains bfq for blk-mq, while the patch you mention is for
>> bfq for blk (never accepted in mainline).  Maybe you could get a
>> clearer idea by having a look at the commits that add bfq (for =
blk-mq)
>> in 4.12-rc1.
>>=20
>=20
> I recall, Markus pointed me to that difference between the BFQ =
implementations.
> For testing purposes: You want people to test BFQ in Linux v4.12?
>=20

That would be awesome.  For the moment, I would be very happy even if
it just didn't crash!

Thanks,
Paolo

> - Sedat -
>=20
>> Hope this helps,
>> Paolo
>>=20
>>> I will re-submit and add a "4.12" in the subject-line when I am at =
home.
>>>=20
>>> - Sedat -
>>>=20
>>> [1] =
http://algo.ing.unimo.it/people/paolo/disk_sched/patches/4.11.0-v8r11/0001=
-block-cgroups-kconfig-build-bits-for-BFQ-v7r11-4.11..patch
>>=20