Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754755AbZJEVJ7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:09:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754035AbZJEVJ6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:09:58 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f199.google.com ([209.85.210.199]:50851 "EHLO mail-yx0-f199.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753959AbZJEVJ6 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:09:58 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=PXZMYxId2zKTs4faJtaarXuPq4tSWtbeDe4KfqA6im9d+sZW5z3fulY8u60C/DtqJ2 o5wRAeOkU2cdU2X0e10w2rMeoDnHA1Unp+oR7oVlY8l68XqKvEjQxhMGAQBvjRcFrT1t Mlmq1mebZ8q72AabHYLNbgZlusx2AuTGOvr8A= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <4e5e476b0910020827s23e827b1n847c64e355999d4a@mail.gmail.com> <20091002195815.GE4494@redhat.com> <4e5e476b0910021514i1b461229t667bed94fd67f140@mail.gmail.com> <20091002222756.GG4494@redhat.com> <4e5e476b0910030543o776fb505ka0ce38da9d83b33c@mail.gmail.com> <20091003133810.GC12925@redhat.com> <4e5e476b0910040215m35af5c99pf2c3a463a5cb61dd@mail.gmail.com> <20091004121122.GB18778@redhat.com> <4e5e476b0910040546h5f77cd1fo3172fe5c229eb579@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:09:21 +0200 Message-ID: <4e5e476b0910051409x33f8365flf32e8e7548d72e79@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Do we support ioprio on SSDs with NCQ (Was: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10) From: Corrado Zoccolo To: Jeff Moyer Cc: Vivek Goyal , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Mike Galbraith , Jens Axboe , Ingo Molnar , Ulrich Lukas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mikew@google.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, ryov@valinux.co.jp, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, righi.andrea@gmail.com, m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, agk@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, jmarchan@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, riel@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 800 Lines: 24 On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Corrado Zoccolo writes: > >> Moreover, I suggest removing also the slice_resid part, since its >> semantics doesn't seem consistent. >> When computed, it is not the residency, but the remaining time slice. > > It stands for residual, not residency.  Make more sense? It makes sense when computed, but not when used in rb_key computation. Why should we postpone queues that where preempted, instead of giving them a boost? Thanks, Corrado > > Cheers, > Jeff > -- 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/