Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1755325AbYJBNsM@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755325AbYJBNsM (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:48:12 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754333AbYJBNr6
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:47:58 -0400
Received: from pasmtpb.tele.dk ([80.160.77.98]:53460 "EHLO pasmtpB.tele.dk"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753772AbYJBNr5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:47:57 -0400
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:47:37 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Give kjournald a IOPRIO_CLASS_RT io priority
Message-ID: <20081002134736.GH19428@kernel.dk>
References: <20081001200034.65eb67d6@infradead.org> <20081001215638.3a65134c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <87fxnfpjqj.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20081002075511.GX19428@kernel.dk> <20081002093326.GF30001@disturbed> <20081002094537.GA19428@kernel.dk> <20081002061433.4e995075@infradead.org> <20081002132746.GG19428@kernel.dk> <20081002063606.512decb3@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20081002063606.512decb3@infradead.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2086
Lines: 58

On Thu, Oct 02 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:27:47 +0200
> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 02 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:45:37 +0200
> > > Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > That's a good idea, just bump the priority a little bit. Arjan,
> > > > did you test that out? I'd suggest just trying prio level 0 and
> > > > still using best-effort scheduling. Probably still need the sync
> > > > marking, would be interesting to experiment with though.
> > > 
> > > I looked at 0 but it appears the 0 is the default for everyone...
> > > if everyone just defaulted to > 0 then yes I would have picked 0.
> > 
> > That's not correct, class BE and value 4 is the default (and the code
> > defaults to that, if you haven't set a value yourself):
> > 
> > #define IOPRIO_NORM     (4)
> > static inline int task_ioprio(struct io_context *ioc)
> > {
> >         if (ioprio_valid(ioc->ioprio))
> >                 return IOPRIO_PRIO_DATA(ioc->ioprio);
> > 
> >         return IOPRIO_NORM;
> > }
> > 
> > static inline int task_ioprio_class(struct io_context *ioc)
> > {
> >         if (ioprio_valid(ioc->ioprio))
> >                 return IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(ioc->ioprio);
> > 
> >         return IOPRIO_CLASS_BE;
> > }
> > 
> > So if you use IOPRIO_CLASS_BE and 0 for the ioprio, you will have the
> > highest priority of the default scheduling class.
> 
> ok
> 
> I checked not by looking at the code, but running ionice -p <pid> on a
> bunch of things and they came back as 0 

Yes, it'll report '0' which means 'not set'. The kernel inteprets 'not
set' as the default values, BE/4. There's a big diffence, since '0'
means that we track CPU nice values where as if it returned be/4 then
that is a strict/fixed setting.

-- 
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/