lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] cfq-prio #2
    On Tue, Nov 11 2003, Nick Piggin wrote:
    >
    >
    > Jens Axboe wrote:
    >
    > >Hi,
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Hi Jens
    >
    > >@@ -1553,6 +1559,10 @@
    > > struct io_context *ioc = get_io_context(gfp_mask);
    > >
    > > spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
    > >+
    > >+ if (!elv_may_queue(q, rw))
    > >+ goto out_lock;
    > >+
    > > if (rl->count[rw]+1 >= q->nr_requests) {
    > > /*
    > > * The queue will fill after this allocation, so set it as
    > >@@ -1566,15 +1576,12 @@
    > > }
    > > }
    > >
    > >- if (blk_queue_full(q, rw)
    > >- && !ioc_batching(ioc) && !elv_may_queue(q, rw)) {
    > >
    >
    > I know I hijacked elv_may_queue from you... any chance we could seperate
    > these so our schedulers can live in peace? ;)

    IOW, you completely broke it! I'm just changing it back to the
    original. When was this done, btw? Just discovered it when updating the
    patch. Pretty annoying...

    > Maybe my version should be called elv_force_queue?

    I just hate to see more of these, really. The original idea for
    may_queue was just that, may this process queue io or not. We can make
    it return something else, though, to indicate whether the process must
    be able to queue. Is it really needed?

    --
    Jens Axboe

    -
    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:0.021 / U:31.668 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site