lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cfq + io priorities
On Thu, Nov 13 2003, 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.

Yes, I can probably be talked into that.

> > > > these end values are "special" - 0 means the process is only allowed to
> > > > do io if the disk is idle, and 20 means the process io is considered
> > >
> > > So a process with ioprio == 0 can be forever starved. As it's not
> >
> > Yes
>
> If semaphore is held over disk io somewhere (quota code? journaling?)
> you have ugly possibility of priority inversion there.

Indeed yes. That's a general problem with all the io priorities though,
RT io might end up waiting for nice 10 io etc. Dunno what to do about
this yet...

--
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:0.094 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site