lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.053 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site