lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 15/20] blkio: Take care of preemptions across groups
Date
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> writes:

> +static bool cfq_should_preempt_group(struct cfq_data *cfqd,
> + struct cfq_queue *cfqq, struct cfq_queue *new_cfqq)
> +{
> + struct cfq_entity *cfqe = &cfqq->entity;
> + struct cfq_entity *new_cfqe = &new_cfqq->entity;
> +
> + if (cfqq_to_cfqg(cfqq) != &cfqd->root_group)
> + cfqe = parent_entity(&cfqq->entity);
> +
> + if (cfqq_to_cfqg(new_cfqq) != &cfqd->root_group)
> + new_cfqe = parent_entity(&new_cfqq->entity);
> +
> + /*
> + * Allow an RT request to pre-empt an ongoing non-RT cfqq timeslice.
> + */
> +
> + if (new_cfqe->ioprio_class == IOPRIO_CLASS_RT
> + && cfqe->ioprio_class != IOPRIO_CLASS_RT)
> + return true;
> + /*
> + * Allow an BE request to pre-empt an ongoing IDLE clas timeslice.
> + */
> +
> + if (new_cfqe->ioprio_class == IOPRIO_CLASS_BE
> + && cfqe->ioprio_class == IOPRIO_CLASS_IDLE)
> + return true;
> +
> + return false;
> +}

What was the motivation for this? It seems like this would really break
isolation. What if one group has all RT priority tasks, will it starve
out the other groups?

Cheers,
Jeff


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-04 20:03    [W:0.236 / U:22.008 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site