Re: [PATCH for-6.12 0/4] block, bfq: fix corner cases related to bfqq merging

[Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>]

On 9/3/24 7:45 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> 在 2024/09/04 10:28, Bart Van Assche 写道:
>> On 9/3/24 6:32 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>> We do have customers are using bfq in downstream kernels, and we are
>>> still running lots of test for bfq.
>>
>> It may take less time to add any missing functionality to another I/O
>> scheduler rather than to keep maintaining BFQ.
>>
>> If Android device vendors would stop using BFQ, my job would become
>> easier.
> 
> I'm confused now, I think keep maintaining BFQ won't stop you from
> adding new functionality to another scheduler, right? Is this something
> that all scheduler have to support?

As long as the BFQ I/O scheduler does not get deprecated, there will be
Android device vendors that select it for their devices. BFQ bug reports
are either sent to one of my colleagues or to myself.

For Android devices that use UFS storage, we noticed that the
mq-deadline scheduler is good enough. The device boot time is shorter
and I'm not aware of any significant differences in application startup
time.

Thanks,

Bart.