Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754443AbYKEJWI (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Nov 2008 04:22:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752901AbYKEJVx (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Nov 2008 04:21:53 -0500 Received: from pasmtpa.tele.dk ([80.160.77.114]:57926 "EHLO pasmtpA.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751106AbYKEJVw (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Nov 2008 04:21:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 10:20:17 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Fernando Luis =?iso-8859-1?Q?V=E1zquez?= Cao , rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeremy@xensource.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: add queue flag for paravirt frontend drivers Message-ID: <20081105092016.GD21867@kernel.dk> References: <1219754894.7235.44.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> <20080826143900.GM20055@kernel.dk> <1219814047.18991.52.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> <1225100686.7370.79.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> <20081027125624.GA22217@kernel.dk> <4910D97E.2030203@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4910D97E.2030203@goop.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1184 Lines: 30 On Tue, Nov 04 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > >On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Fernando Luis V?zquez Cao wrote: > > > >>As is the case with SSD devices, we do not want to idle in AS/CFQ when > >>the block device is a paravirt front-end driver. This patch adds a flag > >>(QUEUE_FLAG_VIRT) which should be used by front-end drivers such as > >>virtio_blk and xen-blkfront to indicate a paravirtualized device. > >> > > > >All three patches look fine, although we could just reuse > >QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT directly. But I agree it makes sense to make the > >distinction, so I've just applied 1-3. > > > > I guess in theory you could imagine that the virtual device is mapped > directly onto a physical device, and the host OS does no scheduling, in > which case it would be appropriate for the guest do the work. But I > think otherwise this makes sense. For that specific case, it should just not set the flag. -- 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/