Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756297AbZJFIl7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 04:41:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755079AbZJFIl6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 04:41:58 -0400 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:49824 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751288AbZJFIl5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 04:41:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:41:20 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Corrado Zoccolo Cc: Jeff Moyer , Vivek Goyal , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Mike Galbraith , 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 Subject: Re: Do we support ioprio on SSDs with NCQ (Was: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10) Message-ID: <20091006084120.GJ5216@kernel.dk> References: <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> <4e5e476b0910051409x33f8365flf32e8e7548d72e79@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4e5e476b0910051409x33f8365flf32e8e7548d72e79@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1033 Lines: 25 On Mon, Oct 05 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote: > 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? We should not, if it is/was working correctly, it should allow both for increase/descrease of tree position (hence it's a long and can go negative) to account for both over and under time. -- 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/