Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Time sliced CFQ #2 | From | Robert Love <> | Date | Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:14:09 -0500 |
| |
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:00 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> What about this: > > nice = x; /* -20 to 20 */ > ioprio = y; /* -40 to 40 */ > effective_ioprio = clamp(x+y); /* -20 to 20 */ > > This would allow tuning processes for unusual contrasts with the ioprio > call. > On the other hand, it would allow us to just brute force "adjust" a > process with > the nice command in the usual way without any changes to the "nice" > source. > > I also thought of a different effective ioprio calculation that scales > instead of clamping:
I think the complication of all of this demonstrates the overcomplexity. I think we need to either
(1) separate the two values. we have a scheduling priority (distributing the finite resource of processor time) and an I/O priority (distributing the finite resource of disk bandwidth). (2) just have a single value.
Personally, I prefer (1). But (2) is fine.
What we want to do either way is cleanly separate the concepts in the kernel. That way we can decide what we actually expose to user-space.
Robert Love
- 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/
| |