[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <D7ABD5F1-A0D8-4F80-AE0B-568A1E272CE0@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:22:30 -0700
From: Divyesh Shah <dpshah@...gle.com>
To: Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: request->ioprio
On Aug 6, 2008, at 2:32 AM, Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:
> (CCing LKML)
>
> Hi Jens, Rusty,
>
> Trying to implement i/o tracking all the way up to the page cache (so
> that cfq and the future cgroup-based I/O controllers can schedule
> buffered I/O properly) I noticed that struct request's ioprio is
> initialized but never used for I/O scheduling purposes. Indeed there
> seems to be one single user of this member: virtio_blk. Virtio uses
> struct request's ioprio in the request() function of the virtio block
> driver, which just copies the ioprio value to the output header of
> virtblk_req.
>
> Is this the intended use of struct request's ioprio? Is it OK for
> device
> drivers to use it? If the answer two the previous to questions is no I
> would like to send some clean-up patches.
Naveen Gupta sent a priority-based anticipatory IO scheduler patchset
earlier which uses request->ioprio and the struct request seems to be
the logical place to keep the ioprio. So, please don't cleanup the
ioprio from there.
Thanks,
Divyesh
>
> - Fernando
>
--
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