[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1218688006.30624.9.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:26:46 +0900
From: Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
吉川 拓哉
<yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>, dpshah@...gle.com
Subject: Re: request->ioprio
On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 12:16 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 August 2008 17:06:03 Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:
> > Besides, I guess that accessing the io context information (such as
> > ioprio) of a request through elevator-specific private structures is not
> > something we want virtio_blk (or future users) to do.
>
> The only semantic I assumed was "higher is better". The server (ie. host) can
> really only use the information to schedule between I/Os for that particular
> guest anyway.
>
> But it sounds like I should be passing "0" in there unconditionally until the
> kernel semantics are sorted out and I can do something more intelligent? I
> haven't checked, but I assume that's actually what's happening at the moment
> (the field is zero)?
Yes, with the current implementation the field is always zero, but
things might change. Instead of passing 0 unconditionally I think we
could use a function that extracts/calculates the ioprio of requests.
The patch I sent you yesterday is the first step in that direction. Is
this a valid approach for you?
--
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