lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Time sliced CFQ #2
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:59:43PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Jeff Sipek wrote:
> >I started working on the rudimentary io prio code, and it got me
> >thinking...
> >Why use the cpu scheduler priorities? Wouldn't it make more sense to add
> >io_prio to task_struct? This way you can have a process which you know
> >needs
> >a lot of CPU but not as much io, or the other way around.
>
> That is the design the Jens' original ioprio code used which we used in
> -ck for quite a while. What myself and -ck users found, though, was that
> being tied to cpu 'nice' meant that most tasks behaved pretty much as
> we'd expect based on one sys call.
>
> I think what is ideal is to have both.

Agreed.

> First the ioprio should be set to
> what the cpu 'nice' level is as a sort of global "this is the priority
> of this task" setting. Then it should also support changing of this
> priority with a different call separate from the cpu nice. That way we
> can take into account access privileges of the caller making it
> impossible to set a high ioprio if the task itself is heavily niced by a
> superuser and so on.

This sounds very reasonable. How would a situation like this one get
handeled:

nice = x
io_prio = y

where x!=y

then, user changes nice. Does the nice level change alone? If so,
providing some "reset to nice==io_prio" capability would make sense, no?

Jeff.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.059 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site