[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49fwbhl48d.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 10:38:10 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Venkatraman S <svenkatr@...com>
Cc: <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>, <cjb@...top.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>, <alex.lemberg@...disk.com>,
<ilan.smith@...disk.com>, <lporzio@...ron.com>,
<rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/16] block: treat DMPG and SWAPIN requests as special
Venkatraman S <svenkatr@...com> writes:
> From: Ilan Smith <ilan.smith@...disk.com>
>
> When exp_swapin and exp_dmpg are set, treat read requests
> marked with DMPG and SWAPIN as high priority and move to
> the front of the queue.
>
[...]
> + if (bio_swapin(bio) && blk_queue_exp_swapin(q)) {
> + spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
> + where = ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH;
> + goto get_rq;
> + }
> +
> + if (bio_dmpg(bio) && blk_queue_exp_dmpg(q)) {
> + spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
> + where = ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH;
> + goto get_rq;
Is ELEVATOR_INSERT_FRONT not good enough? It seems wrong to use _FLUSH,
here. If the semantics of ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH are really what is
required, then perhaps we need to have another think about the naming of
these flags.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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