[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061012130907.GZ6515@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:09:07 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Vasily Tarasov <vtaras@...nvz.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
OpenVZ Developers List <devel@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block layer: ioprio_best function fix
On Thu, Oct 12 2006, Vasily Tarasov wrote:
> Currently ioprio_best function first checks wethere aioprio or bioprio equals
> IOPRIO_CLASS_NONE (ioprio_valid() macros does that) and if it is so it returns
> bioprio/aioprio appropriately. Thus the next four lines, that set aclass/bclass
> to IOPRIO_CLASS_BE, if aclass/bclass == IOPRIO_CLASS_NONE, are never executed.
>
> The second problem: if aioprio from class IOPRIO_CLASS_NONE and bioprio from
> class IOPRIO_CLASS_IDLE are passed to ioprio_best function, it will return
> IOPRIO_CLASS_IDLE. It means that during __make_request we can merge two
> requests and set the priority of merged request to IDLE, while one of
> the initial requests originates from a process with NONE (default) priority.
> So we can get a situation when a process with default ioprio will experience
> IO starvation, while there is no process from real-time class in the system.
>
> Just removing ioprio_valid check should correct situation.
Analysis looks correct, thanks.
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists