Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:54:28 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cfq + io priorities |
| |
Hi!
> > OK, I ask THE question : why not using the normal nice level, via > > current->static_prio ? > > This way, cdrecord would be RT even in IO, and nice -19 updatedb would have > > a minimal impact on the system. > > I don't want to tie io prioritites to cpu priorities, that's a design > decision.
OTOH it might make sense to make "nice" command set both by default.
> > > these end values are "special" - 0 means the process is only allowed to > > > do io if the disk is idle, and 20 means the process io is considered > > > > So a process with ioprio == 0 can be forever starved. As it's not > > Yes
If semaphore is held over disk io somewhere (quota code? journaling?) you have ugly possibility of priority inversion there.
> > Thanks for making something I have been dreaming of for a long time :) > > Me too :)
Yep, another thanx from me... -- Pavel Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |