linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IO Controller: Add per-device weight and ioprio

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090513152909.GD7696@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 May 2009 11:29:09 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	nauman@...gle.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	mikew@...gle.com, fchecconi@...il.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com, ryov@...inux.co.jp, fernando@....ntt.co.jp,
	s-uchida@...jp.nec.com, taka@...inux.co.jp, jmoyer@...hat.com,
	dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, righi.andrea@...il.com,
	agk@...hat.com, dm-devel@...hat.com, snitzer@...hat.com,
	m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IO Controller: Add per-device weight and ioprio_class
	handling

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:00:21AM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:

[..]
> @@ -2137,7 +2366,7 @@ void elv_fq_unset_request_ioq(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
>  void bfq_init_entity(struct io_entity *entity, struct io_group *iog)
>  {
>  	entity->ioprio = entity->new_ioprio;
> -	entity->weight = entity->new_weight;
> +	entity->weight = entity->new_weigh;
>  	entity->ioprio_class = entity->new_ioprio_class;
>  	entity->sched_data = &iog->sched_data;
>  }
> diff --git a/block/elevator-fq.h b/block/elevator-fq.h
> index db3a347..0407633 100644
> --- a/block/elevator-fq.h
> +++ b/block/elevator-fq.h
> @@ -253,6 +253,14 @@ struct io_group {
>  #endif
>  };
>  
> +struct policy_node {

Would "io_policy_node" be better?

> +	struct list_head node;
> +	char dev_name[32];
> +	void *key;
> +	unsigned long weight;
> +	unsigned long ioprio_class;
> +};
> +
>  /**
>   * struct bfqio_cgroup - bfq cgroup data structure.
>   * @css: subsystem state for bfq in the containing cgroup.
> @@ -269,6 +277,9 @@ struct io_cgroup {
>  
>  	unsigned long weight, ioprio_class;
>  
> +	/* list of policy_node */
> +	struct list_head list;
> +

How about "struct list_head policy_list" or "struct list_head io_policy"?

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/