[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081002132746.GG19428@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:27:47 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Give kjournald a IOPRIO_CLASS_RT io priority
On Thu, Oct 02 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:45:37 +0200
> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > That's a good idea, just bump the priority a little bit. Arjan, did
> > you test that out? I'd suggest just trying prio level 0 and still
> > using best-effort scheduling. Probably still need the sync marking,
> > would be interesting to experiment with though.
>
> I looked at 0 but it appears the 0 is the default for everyone...
> if everyone just defaulted to > 0 then yes I would have picked 0.
That's not correct, class BE and value 4 is the default (and the code
defaults to that, if you haven't set a value yourself):
#define IOPRIO_NORM (4)
static inline int task_ioprio(struct io_context *ioc)
{
if (ioprio_valid(ioc->ioprio))
return IOPRIO_PRIO_DATA(ioc->ioprio);
return IOPRIO_NORM;
}
static inline int task_ioprio_class(struct io_context *ioc)
{
if (ioprio_valid(ioc->ioprio))
return IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(ioc->ioprio);
return IOPRIO_CLASS_BE;
}
So if you use IOPRIO_CLASS_BE and 0 for the ioprio, you will have the
highest priority of the default scheduling class.
--
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