Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755581Ab0LJO4X (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:56:23 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24246 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755022Ab0LJO4U (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:56:20 -0500 From: Jeff Moyer To: Shaohua Li Cc: lkml , Jens Axboe , czoccolo@gmail.com Subject: Re: [patch]block cfq: select new workload if priority changed References: <1291871853.2323.8.camel@sli10-conroe> X-PGP-KeyID: 1F78E1B4 X-PGP-CertKey: F6FE 280D 8293 F72C 65FD 5A58 1FF8 A7CA 1F78 E1B4 X-PCLoadLetter: What the f**k does that mean? Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:56:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1291871853.2323.8.camel@sli10-conroe> (Shaohua Li's message of "Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:17:33 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 791 Lines: 22 Shaohua Li writes: > If priority is changed, continue checking workload_expires and service tree > count of previous workload is meaningless. We should always choose the workload I'd change that first sentence to: If priority is changed, continuing to check workload_expires and service tree count of the previous workload does not make sense. > with lowest key of new priority in such case. > > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li This makes sense to me. Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer -- 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/