Re: [PATCH v2] block: BFQ default for single queue devices

Pavel Machek
2018-10-19T08:22:03Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1788 bytes --]

Hi!

> >> Which is also the approach that I've been advocating for here, instead
> >> of a kernel patch...
> >
> > I know you've been advocating the use of udev for IO scheduler selection.
> > But do you want to force everybody to use udev? And for people who build
> > their own (usually small) systems, do you want to force them to think about
> > IO scheduler selection and writing appropriate rules? These are the
> > problems people were mentioning and I'm not sure what is your opinion on
> > this.
>
> I don't want to force everybody to use udev, use whatever you like on
> your platform. For most people that is udev, for embedded it's something
> else. As you said, distros already do this via udev. When I've had to
> do it on my systems, I've added a udev rule to do it.

This is not really helpful.

So you want me and everyone else and everyone on embedded to mess with
udev? No, thanks.

There are people booting with init=/bin/bash, too, running fsck. Would
not it be nice to use reasonable schedulers there?

> My opinion is that the kernel makes various schedulers available.
> Deciding which one to use is policy that should go into user space.
> The default should be something that's solid and works, fancier
> setups and tuning should be left to user space.

Kernel should do reasonable thing by default, and it seems to be easy
in this case.

You keep repeating "but someone's super fast raid might get slowed
down". Those 5 people in the world probably already have their udev
rules.

Now, lets do the right thing by default for the rest of the world,
including you.

Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]