Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: request->ioprio | From | Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao <> | Date | Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:26:46 +0900 |
| |
On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 12:16 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Wednesday 13 August 2008 17:06:03 Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote: > > Besides, I guess that accessing the io context information (such as > > ioprio) of a request through elevator-specific private structures is not > > something we want virtio_blk (or future users) to do. > > The only semantic I assumed was "higher is better". The server (ie. host) can > really only use the information to schedule between I/Os for that particular > guest anyway. > > But it sounds like I should be passing "0" in there unconditionally until the > kernel semantics are sorted out and I can do something more intelligent? I > haven't checked, but I assume that's actually what's happening at the moment > (the field is zero)? Yes, with the current implementation the field is always zero, but things might change. Instead of passing 0 unconditionally I think we could use a function that extracts/calculates the ioprio of requests. The patch I sent you yesterday is the first step in that direction. Is this a valid approach for you?
-- 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/
| |