[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:58:14 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
Cc: Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] cfq-iosched: reimplement priorities using
different service trees
On Mon, Oct 19 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> We use different service trees for different priority classes.
> This allows a simplification in the service tree insertion code, that no
> longer has to consider priority while walking the tree.
> +enum wl_prio_t {
> + IDLE_WL = -1,
> + BE_WL = 0,
> + RT_WL = 1
> +};
WL?
> +static struct cfq_rb_root *service_tree_for(enum wl_prio_t prio,
> + struct cfq_data *cfqd)
> +{
> + return prio == IDLE_WL ? &cfqd->service_tree_idle :
> + &cfqd->service_trees[prio];
> +}
Don't do it...
static struct cfq_rb_root *service_tree_for(enum wl_prio_t prio,
struct cfq_data *cfqd)
{
if (prio == IDLE_WL)
return &cfqd->service_tree_idle;
return &cfqd->service_trees[prio];
}
much cleaner. There are more of these in this patch.
Otherwise it looks sane, and I agree that making the insert cleaner here
is a good bonus.
--
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