On Saturday 03 June 2006 03:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sat, May 27 2006, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Jens, ml
> >
> > I was wondering if cfq io priorities should be explicitly set to the
> > realtime class when no io priority is specified from realtime tasks as in
> > the following patch? (rt_task() will need to be modified to suit the PI
> > changes in -mm)
>
> Not sure. RT io needs to be considered carefully, but I guess so does RT
> CPU scheduling. For now I'd prefer to play it a little safer, and only
> inheric the priority value and not the class.
The problem I envisioned with that was that realtime tasks, if they don't
specify an io priority (as most current code doesn't), would basically get io
priority 4 and have the same proportion as any nice 0 SCHED_NORMAL task
whereas -nice tasks automatically are getting better io priority. How about
givent them normal class but best priority so they are at least getting the
same as nice -20?
--
-ck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
