[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47e0a519-37b4-f5e7-0616-8659d11c2b69@wdc.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 20:15:26 +0000
From: Adam Manzanares <Adam.Manzanares@....com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC: "viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"bcrl@...ck.org" <bcrl@...ck.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-aio@...ck.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev
On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzanares@....com wrote:
>> If we want to avoid bloating struct kiocb, I suggest we turn the private field
>> into a union of the private and ki_ioprio field. It seems like the users of
>> the private field all use it at a point where we can yank the priority from
>> the kiocb before the private field is used. Comments and suggestions welcome.
>
> Or we could just make ki_hint a u8 or u16 ... seems unlikely we'll need
> 32 bits of ki_hint. (currently defined values are 1-5)
I like the approach of using a u16 for the ki_hint. I'll update and
resubmit.
>> @@ -300,6 +301,7 @@ struct kiocb {
>> void *private;
>> int ki_flags;
>> enum rw_hint ki_hint;
>> + u16 ki_ioprio; /* See linux/ioprio.h */
>> } __randomize_layout;
>>
>> static inline bool is_sync_kiocb(struct kiocb *kiocb)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists