Re: [PATCH] Time sliced CFQ #2

From: Kyle Moffett
Date: Mon Dec 06 2004 - 07:23:20 EST


On Dec 06, 2004, at 00:14, Robert Love wrote:
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.

The reason I proposed my ideas for tying the two values together is that I am
concerned about breaking existing code. I have several binaries to which the
source has been lost but I would like to have them continue to properly adjust
their priorities internally. On the other hand, I have other programs that I am
currently writing where I would like to be able to have separate IO and CPU
priorities. I believe that we could have two values yet preserve backwards
compatibility if we derive the effective IO priority from the sum or the provided
IO and CPU priority values, or something along those lines. That way any
program not knowing about the new syscall could just nice() and get both
values adjusted. If a parent program ran "ioprio()" beforehand to adjust the
ioprio with respect to the nice value, then that balance would be maintained.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r !y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/