Jens Axboe and Christoph Hellwig are terrible managers. They may be good programmers, but they are not doing a good job managing their part of the linux kernel project. They have tunnel vision, only seeing what they are currently concentrating on, and not wanting to divert any of their time or effort to anything else, even when a developer comes forward with ready-made useful code that many linux users want.
-
Yay, back to the moving goalposts!
"We could have had BFQ for mq NOW, if we didn't keep coming back to this very point."
We could have had BFQ years ago, if every submission wasn't hit with the latest arbitrary wishlist. Never mind that it's demonstrably better than CFS in every metric, that it's more maintainable, that the code already exists...
It needs to replace CFQ. It needs to be patched from CFQ. Patching from CFQ is too confusing. The fundamental concept is wrong, if you ignore the real behaviour. Now, having been bikeshedded continuously for years, it's behind on the latest churn.
BFQ doesn't have to be better than any I/O scheduler in the kernel, or planned to be in the kernel, it has to be better than any of the hypothetical alternatives that get invented on the spot whenever the (real, usable-right-now) patches show up.
Leave a comment:
-
"nak, make bfq for mq" http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/k...0.3/03774.html
"mq? yes! no! yes!" http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/k...0.3/03764.htmlLeave a comment:
-
BFQ I/O Scheduler Patches Revised, Aiming To Be Extra Scheduler In The Kernel
Phoronix: BFQ I/O Scheduler Patches Revised, Aiming To Be Extra Scheduler In The Kernel
BFQ developers had hoped to replace CFQ in the mainline Linux kernel with Budget Fair Queueing for a variety of reasons but it hadn't ended up making it mainline. Now the developers are hoping to introduce BFQ back to mainline as an extra available scheduler...
Leave a comment: