Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751716AbdCBKQM (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 05:16:12 -0500 Received: from mail-wr0-f170.google.com ([209.85.128.170]:33585 "EHLO mail-wr0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751630AbdCBKQH (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 05:16:07 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: [WIP BRANCH] cgroups support in bfq-mq WIP branch From: Paolo Valente In-Reply-To: <97eadcb9-5049-399a-e5a7-d4f8b821756b@kernel.dk> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:15:58 +0100 Cc: "ulf.hansson@linaro.org" , "tj@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "broonie@kernel.org" , "linus.walleij@linaro.org" , Bart Van Assche Message-Id: <3410FACF-D8AF-41FA-B38B-9EFAE6B301F0@linaro.org> References: <97eadcb9-5049-399a-e5a7-d4f8b821756b@kernel.dk> To: Jens Axboe X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.home.local id v22AGXWL006106 Content-Length: 1731 Lines: 55 > Il giorno 25 feb 2017, alle ore 19:52, Jens Axboe 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 >