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: <4A0B6D8D.6060202@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 May 2009 09:02:05 +0800
From:	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.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

Vivek Goyal wrote:
> 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?

  Sure

> 
>> +	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"?

  OK

-- 
Regards
Gui Jianfeng

--
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/