Il giorno 25 feb 2017, alle ore 19:52, Jens Axboe [off-list ref] ha =

scritto:

=20
On 02/25/2017 10:44 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:

quoted

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?

=20
Just call it 'bfq', that doesn't conflict with anything that's
in the kernel already.
=20

ok

quoted

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.

=20
Rebase your patches on top of Linus current master, some of them
will need to change and some can be dropped.
=20

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.
=20

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.
=20

I was about to to submit, but bumped into the above regression.

Thanks,
Paolo

--=20
Jens Axboe
=20