Re: [PATCH][1/1] Per-priority statistics for CFQ w/iopriorities 2.6.8.1

[Shailabh Nagar]

Jens Axboe wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 30 2004, Shailabh Nagar wrote:
>
> > Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Missed this patch the first time over (thank you lwn :-) - why are you
> > > using atomic counters? In all the paths you set them, you already have
> > > the queue lock.
> >
> > Thats right, there's no need for them. I used these instinctively....
> > Will fix in next version, unless (hint, hint) you're taking a look at 
> > adding priorities back to mainline's CFQ.
>
>
> It will never be for the mainline cfq, that is a dead code base. -mm has
> a first stab at a cfq v2 with persistent io contexts, the priority based
> code will go on top of that.

Great. In CKRM, we'll switch to using -mm's cfq then.

-- Shailabh
-
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/