> I'm not convinced it's the domain of an IO scheduler to be involved,
> rather than it being explicit UX intended by the desktop environment.
> Seems to me the desktop environment is in a better position to know
> what users expect.
Well wouldn't bfq just be enforcing the bandwidth weights, if an
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:02 PM Tom Seewald wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention that bfq appears to be the only IO scheduler that
> supports cgroups-v2 IO controllers [1]. Perhaps I am wrong, but I wasn't able
> to find documentation indicating that mq-deadline is cgroup-aware, at the
> very least i
I forgot to mention that bfq appears to be the only IO scheduler that supports
cgroups-v2 IO controllers [1]. Perhaps I am wrong, but I wasn't able to find
documentation indicating that mq-deadline is cgroup-aware, at the very least
it's not documented in the official deadline tunables section [
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:28:53PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 17:23:16 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 04:25:23PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 15:01:24 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 17:23:16 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 04:25:23PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 15:01:24 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783
> > >
> > > The main argument is that for ty
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 04:25:23PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 15:01:24 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783
> >
> > The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora,
> > mostly on consumer hardware, we should u
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 15:01:24 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783
>
> The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora,
> mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadline scheduler
> rather than either none or bfq.
>
> It may
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:44 am, Tom Seewald wrote:
In case you find it useful, Paolo has posted his own results from
testing IO schedulers on Linux [1][2] as well as the scripts he used
to generate the load [3]. I don't claim that these results have been
independently verified or that they ar
> It's super annoying for me to post, because benchmarks drive me crazy,
> and yet here I am posting one - this is almost like self flagellation
> to paste this...
>
> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-56-nvme&;...
>
> None of these benchmarks are representative of a gener
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 9:45 PM Tom Seewald wrote:
>
> > The latter but considering they're a broad variety of workloads I
> > think it's misleading to call them server workloads as if that's one
> > particular type of thing, or not applicable to a desktop under IO
> > pressure. Why? (a) they're u
> The latter but considering they're a broad variety of workloads I
> think it's misleading to call them server workloads as if that's one
> particular type of thing, or not applicable to a desktop under IO
> pressure. Why? (a) they're using consumer storage devices (b) these
> are real workloads r
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:24 PM Tom Seewald wrote:
>
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783
> >
> > The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora,
> > mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadline scheduler
> > rather than either none or bfq.
> >
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783
>
> The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora,
> mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadline scheduler
> rather than either none or bfq.
>
> It may be true most folks with NVMe won't see anything bad with
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:38 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:01 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783
>>
>> The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora,
>> mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadli
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:01 PM Chris Murphy
wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783
>
> The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora,
> mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadline scheduler
> rather than either none or bfq.
>
> It may be tr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851783
The main argument is that for typical and varied workloads in Fedora,
mostly on consumer hardware, we should use mq-deadline scheduler
rather than either none or bfq.
It may be true most folks with NVMe won't see anything bad with none,
but thos
16 matches
Mail list logo
