Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:56:29 +0100 | From | Jakob Oestergaard <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cfq + io priorities |
| |
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 01:54:28PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > OK, I ask THE question : why not using the normal nice level, via > > > current->static_prio ? > > > This way, cdrecord would be RT even in IO, and nice -19 updatedb would have > > > a minimal impact on the system. > > > > I don't want to tie io prioritites to cpu priorities, that's a design > > decision. > > OTOH it might make sense to make "nice" command set > both by default.
The syscall actually.
Users and developers alike, expect "nice" to mean "nice".
Having cpu_nice and io_nice too would be nice for completeness, if for some unfathomable reason someone would want to set the one and not the other.
All in my humble oppinion, of course :)
-- ................................................................ : jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, : :.........................: putrid forms of man : : Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, : : OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. : :.........................:............{Konkhra}...............: - 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/
| |