| Message ID | 20170412162322.11139-1-paolo.valente@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Introduce the BFQ I/O scheduler | expand |
> Il giorno 12 apr 2017, alle ore 18:23, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> ha scritto: > > Hi, > new patch series, addressing (both) issues raised by Bart [1], and > with block/Makefile fixed as suggested by Bart [2]. > Hi Jens, apparently no complain of any sort on this last series. Do you think we could make it for 4.12, or shall we aim at 4.13? Thanks, Paolo > Thanks, > Paolo > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/31/393 > [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/4/12/502 > > Arianna Avanzini (4): > block, bfq: add full hierarchical scheduling and cgroups support > block, bfq: add Early Queue Merge (EQM) > block, bfq: reduce idling only in symmetric scenarios > block, bfq: handle bursts of queue activations > > Paolo Valente (12): > block, bfq: introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra scheduler > block, bfq: improve throughput boosting > block, bfq: modify the peak-rate estimator > block, bfq: add more fairness with writes and slow processes > block, bfq: improve responsiveness > block, bfq: reduce I/O latency for soft real-time applications > block, bfq: preserve a low latency also with NCQ-capable drives > block, bfq: reduce latency during request-pool saturation > block, bfq: boost the throughput on NCQ-capable flash-based devices > block, bfq: boost the throughput with random I/O on NCQ-capable HDDs > block, bfq: remove all get and put of I/O contexts > block, bfq: split bfq-iosched.c into multiple source files > > Documentation/block/00-INDEX | 2 + > Documentation/block/bfq-iosched.txt | 531 ++++ > block/Kconfig.iosched | 21 + > block/Makefile | 2 + > block/bfq-cgroup.c | 1139 ++++++++ > block/bfq-iosched.c | 5047 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > block/bfq-iosched.h | 942 +++++++ > block/bfq-wf2q.c | 1616 +++++++++++ > include/linux/blkdev.h | 2 +- > 9 files changed, 9301 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 Documentation/block/bfq-iosched.txt > create mode 100644 block/bfq-cgroup.c > create mode 100644 block/bfq-iosched.c > create mode 100644 block/bfq-iosched.h > create mode 100644 block/bfq-wf2q.c > > -- > 2.10.0
On 04/19/2017 03:23 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: > >> Il giorno 12 apr 2017, alle ore 18:23, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> ha scritto: >> >> Hi, >> new patch series, addressing (both) issues raised by Bart [1], and >> with block/Makefile fixed as suggested by Bart [2]. >> > > Hi Jens, > apparently no complain of any sort on this last series. Do you think > we could make it for 4.12, or shall we aim at 4.13? We may as well queue it up now, I don't think there's much point in deferring an extra cycle. -- Jens Axboe
> Il giorno 19 apr 2017, alle ore 16:33, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> ha scritto: > > On 04/19/2017 03:23 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: >> >>> Il giorno 12 apr 2017, alle ore 18:23, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> ha scritto: >>> >>> Hi, >>> new patch series, addressing (both) issues raised by Bart [1], and >>> with block/Makefile fixed as suggested by Bart [2]. >>> >> >> Hi Jens, >> apparently no complain of any sort on this last series. Do you think >> we could make it for 4.12, or shall we aim at 4.13? > > We may as well queue it up now, I don't think there's much point in > deferring an extra cycle. > A little scary, but (of course) fine for me. Thanks, Paolo > -- > Jens Axboe >
On 04/19/2017 01:05 PM, Paolo Valente wrote: > >> Il giorno 19 apr 2017, alle ore 16:33, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> ha scritto: >> >> On 04/19/2017 03:23 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: >>> >>>> Il giorno 12 apr 2017, alle ore 18:23, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> ha scritto: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> new patch series, addressing (both) issues raised by Bart [1], and >>>> with block/Makefile fixed as suggested by Bart [2]. >>>> >>> >>> Hi Jens, >>> apparently no complain of any sort on this last series. Do you think >>> we could make it for 4.12, or shall we aim at 4.13? >> >> We may as well queue it up now, I don't think there's much point in >> deferring an extra cycle. >> > > A little scary, but (of course) fine for me. Reaching the culmination of having your big project merged after a long time is always a little scary. For now, kick back and open a Tignanello, and brace yourself for tending to potential bug reports once the 4.12 merge window opens. -- Jens Axboe