From: Tang Yizhou <[email protected]>
Our system administrator have noted that the names 'rt-to-be' and
'all-to-idle' in the I/O priority policies table appeared without
explanations, leading to confusion. Let's bring these names in line
with the naming in the 'attribute' section.
Additionally,
1. Correct the interface name to 'io.prio.class'.
2. Add a table entry of 'promote-to-rt' for consistency.
3. Fix a typo of 'priority'.
Suggested-by: Yingfu Zhou <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Hou Tao <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <[email protected]>
---
v2:
Accept Bart's suggestion and rename the title of the patch.
Pick up Tao's Reviewed-by tag.
Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst | 10 ++++++----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
index 4ef890191196..10461c73c9a3 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
@@ -2023,7 +2023,7 @@ IO Priority
~~~~~~~~~~~
A single attribute controls the behavior of the I/O priority cgroup policy,
-namely the blkio.prio.class attribute. The following values are accepted for
+namely the io.prio.class attribute. The following values are accepted for
that attribute:
no-change
@@ -2052,9 +2052,11 @@ The following numerical values are associated with the I/O priority policies:
+----------------+---+
| no-change | 0 |
+----------------+---+
-| rt-to-be | 2 |
+| promote-to-rt | 1 |
+----------------+---+
-| all-to-idle | 3 |
+| restrict-to-be | 2 |
++----------------+---+
+| idle | 3 |
+----------------+---+
The numerical value that corresponds to each I/O priority class is as follows:
@@ -2074,7 +2076,7 @@ The algorithm to set the I/O priority class for a request is as follows:
- If I/O priority class policy is promote-to-rt, change the request I/O
priority class to IOPRIO_CLASS_RT and change the request I/O priority
level to 4.
-- If I/O priorityt class is not promote-to-rt, translate the I/O priority
+- If I/O priority class policy is not promote-to-rt, translate the I/O priority
class policy into a number, then change the request I/O priority class
into the maximum of the I/O priority class policy number and the numerical
I/O priority class.
--
2.25.1
On 10/11/23 19:42, Tang Yizhou wrote:
> From: Tang Yizhou <[email protected]>
>
> Our system administrator have noted that the names 'rt-to-be' and
> 'all-to-idle' in the I/O priority policies table appeared without
> explanations, leading to confusion. Let's bring these names in line
> with the naming in the 'attribute' section.
>
> Additionally,
> 1. Correct the interface name to 'io.prio.class'.
> 2. Add a table entry of 'promote-to-rt' for consistency.
> 3. Fix a typo of 'priority'.
>
> Suggested-by: Yingfu Zhou <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Hou Tao <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <[email protected]>
> ---
> v2:
> Accept Bart's suggestion and rename the title of the patch.
> Pick up Tao's Reviewed-by tag.
Thank you for having changed the patch subject.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <[email protected]>
Tang Yizhou <[email protected]> writes:
> From: Tang Yizhou <[email protected]>
>
> Our system administrator have noted that the names 'rt-to-be' and
> 'all-to-idle' in the I/O priority policies table appeared without
> explanations, leading to confusion. Let's bring these names in line
> with the naming in the 'attribute' section.
>
> Additionally,
> 1. Correct the interface name to 'io.prio.class'.
> 2. Add a table entry of 'promote-to-rt' for consistency.
> 3. Fix a typo of 'priority'.
>
> Suggested-by: Yingfu Zhou <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Hou Tao <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <[email protected]>
> ---
> v2:
> Accept Bart's suggestion and rename the title of the patch.
> Pick up Tao's Reviewed-by tag.
>
> Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
I've applied this, thanks.
jon