Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262327AbTKIK4k (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Nov 2003 05:56:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262337AbTKIK4k (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Nov 2003 05:56:40 -0500 Received: from nice-1-62-147-25-88.dial.proxad.net ([62.147.25.88]:16644 "EHLO monpc") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262327AbTKIK4j (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Nov 2003 05:56:39 -0500 From: Guillaume Chazarain To: Jens Axboe Cc: Linux Kernel Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 11:57:39 +0100 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfq + io priorities MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Mailer: Opera 6.06 build 1145 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 945 Lines: 28 > A process has an assigned io nice level, anywhere from 0 to 20. Both of 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. > 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 done this way for nice -19 tasks (unlike FreeBSD), wouldn't it be safer to give a very long deadline to ioprio == 0 requests ? Thanks for making something I have been dreaming of for a long time :) Guillaume - 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/