Re: [PATCH] cfq + io priorities

[Albert Cahalan]

On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 05:19, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <albert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > Sure, but do it in a way that's friendly to
> > all the apps and admins that only know "nice".
> > 
> > nice_cpu   sets CPU niceness
> > nice_net   sets net niceness
> > nice_disk  sets disk niceness
> > ...
> > nice       sets all niceness values at once
> 
> That's a user space problem.  No matter what Jens
> does, you can always make nice(1) do what you said.

It's not just the nice command. There's a syscall
interface you know, and lots of apps use it.

#include <unistd.h>
int nice(int inc);

You planning to hack ALL those apps? You'll
convince BSD-centric developers to include
this Linux-specific change?

Besides, the kernel load average was changed to
include processes waiting for IO. It just plain
makes sense to mix CPU usage with IO usage by
default. Wanting different niceness for CPU
and IO is a really unusual thing.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/