Re: [PATCH] Time sliced CFQ #2

[Con Kolivas]

Jeff Sipek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:59:43PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > First the ioprio should be set to 
> > what the cpu 'nice' level is as a sort of global "this is the priority 
> > of this task" setting. Then it should also support changing of this 
> > priority with a different call separate from the cpu nice. That way we 
> > can take into account access privileges of the caller making it 
> > impossible to set a high ioprio if the task itself is heavily niced by a 
> > superuser and so on.
>
>
> This sounds very reasonable. How would a situation like this one get
> handeled:
>
> nice = x
> io_prio = y
>
> where x!=y
>
> then, user changes nice. Does the nice level change alone? If so,
> providing some "reset to nice==io_prio" capability would make sense, no?

I think when nice is changed, ioprio needs to be changed with it as a 
sane default action. I suspect that most of the time people will not use 
the separate ioprio call, but using 'nice' is a regular linuxy thing to 
do. Ideally we make ioprio part of the 'nice' utility and we specify 
both at the same time. Something like:
nice -n 5 -i 20 blah

Cheers,
Con

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature