[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200808161713.37146.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:13:36 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
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 Friday 15 August 2008 15:51:02 Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:
> 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.
>
> Does that mean you are not going to incorporate the prio class system
> that is used in Linux?
Actually, since it's unused at the moment, we can define it however we want.
But note that this is an ABI; while the kernel-internal definitions are
fluid, this semantic must stay the same (even if the actual values differ).
So we should probably put an explicit mapping function there anyway.
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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