From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: elevator priorities vs. full request queues Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:00:25 +0200 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040623170024.GP1120@suse.de> References: <20040622012502.B1325@almesberger.net> <20040622074852.GW12881@suse.de> <20040622052644.D1325@almesberger.net> <20040622101434.GB12881@suse.de> <20040622160859.I1325@almesberger.net> <20040623101430.GI1120@suse.de> <20040623094632.L1325@almesberger.net> <20040623164659.GN1120@suse.de> <20040623135759.M1325@almesberger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:46532 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266577AbUFWRAV (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:00:21 -0400 To: Werner Almesberger Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040623135759.M1325@almesberger.net> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 23 2004, Werner Almesberger wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > Not sure I quite understand what you mean here, pass the bio in where? > > To elv_may_queue (and its callers), just like your patch > passes "prio". So the call to bio_prio would move into > *_may_queue. (And maybe we'd have to allow NULL, for > requests fabricated in a special way.) Don't like that approach. I don't see why you'd need more than the priority passed in anyways? -- Jens Axboe