[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081128.120954.1024833258536769313.ryov@valinux.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:09:54 +0900 (JST)
From: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>
To: fernando@....ntt.co.jp
Cc: vgoyal@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
taka@...inux.co.jp, righi.andrea@...il.com, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
menage@...gle.com, ngupta@...gle.com, riel@...hat.com,
jmoyer@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, fchecconi@...il.com,
paolo.valente@...more.it
Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] [RFC] Another proportional weight IO controller
Hi,
> > > I don't come up with any use case, but I would like to make the
> > > resource controller more flexible. Actually, a certain block device
> > > that I'm using does not use the I/O scheduler.
> >
> > Isn't it equivalent to using No-op? If yes, then it should not be an
> > issue?
>
> No, it is not equivalent. When using devices drivers that provide their
> own make_request_fn() (check for devices that invoke
> blk_queue_make_request() at initialization time) bios entering the block
> layer can go directly to the device driver and from there to the device.
As Fernando said, that device driver invokes blk_queue_make_request(),
Thanks,
Ryo Tsuruta
--
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