Re: [PATCH] cfq + io priorities

From: Jakob Oestergaard
Date: Sun Nov 16 2003 - 17:57:18 EST


On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 01:54:28PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > OK, I ask THE question : why not using the normal nice level, via
> > > current->static_prio ?
> > > This way, cdrecord would be RT even in IO, and nice -19 updatedb would have
> > > a minimal impact on the system.
> >
> > I don't want to tie io prioritites to cpu priorities, that's a design
> > decision.
>
> OTOH it might make sense to make "nice" command set
> both by default.

The syscall actually.

Users and developers alike, expect "nice" to mean "nice".

Having cpu_nice and io_nice too would be nice for completeness, if for
some unfathomable reason someone would want to set the one and not the
other.


All in my humble oppinion, of course :)

--
................................................................
: jakob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
-
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/