From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfq: priority boost on meta/prio marked IO To: Jeff Moyer References: <20160608204347.GA30146@kernel.dk> <5759E177.9040307@kernel.dk> <5759E299.2060200@kernel.dk> <5759E820.1010609@kernel.dk> Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <5759EA89.90104@kernel.dk> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:15:37 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed List-ID: On 06/09/2016 04:08 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Jens Axboe writes: > >> On 06/09/2016 04:04 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote: >>> Jens Axboe writes: >>> >>>>> I went and checked, but I don't see it. Where is this? >>>> >>>> Ah now I see, you're looking at current -git. The patch is against >>>> for-4.8/core. >>> >>> Ah, right, Mike's patches went in. >>> >>>> Updated version below, dropping REQ_META and changing the naming >>>> s/meta/prio. >>>> >>>> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c >>>> index 32a283eb7274..3cfd67d006fb 100644 >>>> --- a/block/blk-core.c >>>> +++ b/block/blk-core.c >>>> @@ -1781,6 +1781,11 @@ get_rq: >>>> rw_flags |= REQ_SYNC; >>>> >>>> /* >>>> + * Add in META/PRIO flags, if set, before we get to the IO scheduler >>>> + */ >>>> + rw_flags |= (bio->bi_rw & (REQ_META | REQ_PRIO)); >>>> + >>>> + /* >>> >>> Do we still need to pass in META here? >> >> We don't have to, but it doesn't really hurt. Frankly, we should pass >> in the whole damn thing. > > Heh, okay. > > Fine by me, Jens. :) > > Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer Thanks Jeff, added for 4.8. -- Jens Axboe