From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750802AbWFBRJ6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:09:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751394AbWFBRJ5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:09:57 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:37636 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750802AbWFBRJ5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:09:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:12:16 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Con Kolivas Cc: ck list , linux list Subject: Re: [ck] [patch] cfq: ioprio inherit rt class Message-ID: <20060602171215.GM4400@suse.de> References: <200605271150.41924.kernel@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200605271150.41924.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -- Jens Axboe