Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753641AbdCBPwK (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:52:10 -0500 Received: from mail-it0-f42.google.com ([209.85.214.42]:38831 "EHLO mail-it0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753380AbdCBPwA (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:52:00 -0500 Subject: Re: [WIP BRANCH] cgroups support in bfq-mq WIP branch To: Paolo Valente References: <97eadcb9-5049-399a-e5a7-d4f8b821756b@kernel.dk> <3410FACF-D8AF-41FA-B38B-9EFAE6B301F0@linaro.org> 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 From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:19:05 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3410FACF-D8AF-41FA-B38B-9EFAE6B301F0@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1539 Lines: 40 On 03/02/2017 03:15 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: > >> 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. 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