> Il giorno 25 feb 2017, alle ore 19:52, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> ha scritto:
>
> On 02/25/2017 10:44 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I've just completed cgroups support, and I'd like to highlight the
>> main blk-mq issue that I have found along the way. I have pushed the
>> commit that completes the support for cgroups to the usual WIP branch
>> [1]. Before moving to this issue, I have preliminary question about
>> the scheduler name, since I'm about to start preparing the patch
>> series for submission. So far, I have used bfq-mq as a temporary
>> name. Are we fine with it, or should I change it, for example, to
>> just bfq? Jens?
>
> Just call it 'bfq', that doesn't conflict with anything that's
> in the kernel already.
>
ok
>> I've found a sort of circular dependency in blk-mq, related to
>> scheduler initialization. To describe both the issue and how I've
>> addressed it, I'm pasting the message of the new commit.
>
> Rebase your patches on top of Linus current master, some of them
> will need to change and some can be dropped.
>
Done, but the last deadlock issue shows up again :( To help you get
context, I'm going to reply to the email in which your sent the patch that
solved it.
> And disentangle it completely from the old bfq, I don't want to see
> nasty stuff like includes of .c files with prior defines modifying
> behavior of functions.
>
Of course.
> When that's done, get it posted for review asap. I would imagine
> we will go through a few postings and review cycles, and if we're
> targeting 4.12 with this, then we should get the ball rolling
> on that side.
>
I was about to to submit, but bumped into the above regression.
Thanks,
Paolo
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
On 03/02/2017 03:15 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>
>> Il giorno 25 feb 2017, alle ore 19:52, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> ha scritto:
>>
>> On 02/25/2017 10:44 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I've just completed cgroups support, and I'd like to highlight the
>>> main blk-mq issue that I have found along the way. I have pushed the
>>> commit that completes the support for cgroups to the usual WIP branch
>>> [1]. Before moving to this issue, I have preliminary question about
>>> the scheduler name, since I'm about to start preparing the patch
>>> series for submission. So far, I have used bfq-mq as a temporary
>>> name. Are we fine with it, or should I change it, for example, to
>>> just bfq? Jens?
>>
>> Just call it 'bfq', that doesn't conflict with anything that's
>> in the kernel already.
>>
>
> ok
>
>>> I've found a sort of circular dependency in blk-mq, related to
>>> scheduler initialization. To describe both the issue and how I've
>>> addressed it, I'm pasting the message of the new commit.
>>
>> Rebase your patches on top of Linus current master, some of them
>> will need to change and some can be dropped.
>>
>
> Done, but the last deadlock issue shows up again :( To help you get
> context, I'm going to reply to the email in which your sent the patch that
> solved it.
OK, I got that sent to you. When you have tested it, just add it as
a prep patch in your series. If it works for you, then let me know
and I'll add your Tested-by: to that patch and post it for more
thorough review.
--
Jens Axboe