MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <068e03c4-3558-a6b1-2008-d13bde4958a1@kernel.dk>
References: <1476388433-2539-1-git-send-email-adam.manzanares@hgst.com>
 <1476388433-2539-2-git-send-email-adam.manzanares@hgst.com>
 <CAPcyv4giMwLRkP9YDcOo4st2RqxPXsYYyTOJ2_U8ywQPteM5gQ@mail.gmail.com> <068e03c4-3558-a6b1-2008-d13bde4958a1@kernel.dk>
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:19:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jtxp5yFUGqLOmch6EH=CzKtZr4Qb-qnjHb=xLpU5LspQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] block: Add iocontext priority to request
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Adam Manzanares <adam.manzanares@hgst.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>, mchristi@redhat.com,
        Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>,
        sathya.prakash@broadcom.com, chaitra.basappa@broadcom.com,
        suganath-prabu.subramani@broadcom.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        "IDE/ATA development list" <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Adam Manzananares <adam.manzanares@wdc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2044
Lines: 51

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 02:06 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Adam Manzanares
>> <adam.manzanares@hgst.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Patch adds an association between iocontext ioprio and the ioprio of a
>>> request. This value is set in blk_rq_set_prio which takes the request and
>>> the ioc as arguments. If the ioc is valid in blk_rq_set_prio then the
>>> iopriority of the request is set as the iopriority of the ioc. In
>>> init_request_from_bio a check is made to see if the ioprio of the bio is
>>> valid and if so then the request prio comes from the bio.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Adam Manzananares <adam.manzanares@wdc.com>
>>> ---
>>>  block/blk-core.c       |  4 +++-
>>>  include/linux/blkdev.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
>>> index 14d7c07..361b1b9 100644
>>> --- a/block/blk-core.c
>>> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
>>> @@ -1153,6 +1153,7 @@ static struct request *__get_request(struct
>>> request_list *rl, int op,
>>>
>>>         blk_rq_init(q, rq);
>>>         blk_rq_set_rl(rq, rl);
>>> +       blk_rq_set_prio(rq, ioc);
>>>         req_set_op_attrs(rq, op, op_flags | REQ_ALLOCED);
>>>
>>>         /* init elvpriv */
>>> @@ -1656,7 +1657,8 @@ void init_request_from_bio(struct request *req,
>>> struct bio *bio)
>>>
>>>         req->errors = 0;
>>>         req->__sector = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector;
>>> -       req->ioprio = bio_prio(bio);
>>> +       if (ioprio_valid(bio_prio(bio)))
>>> +               req->ioprio = bio_prio(bio);
>>
>>
>> Should we use ioprio_best() here?  If req->ioprio and bio_prio()
>> disagree one side has explicitly asked for a higher priority.
>
>
> It's a good question - but if priority has been set in the bio, it makes
> sense that that would take priority over the general setting for the
> task/io context. So I think the patch is correct as-is.

Assuming you always trust the kernel to know the right priority...