From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Werner Almesberger Subject: Re: elevator priorities vs. full request queues Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:29:04 -0300 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040713092904.A1795@almesberger.net> 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> <20040712205227.A12285@almesberger.net> <20040713053749.GA14759@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from almesberger.net ([63.105.73.238]:17672 "EHLO host.almesberger.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264919AbUGMM3T (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:29:19 -0400 To: Jens Axboe Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040713053749.GA14759@suse.de>; from axboe@suse.de on Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 07:37:52AM +0200 List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Jens Axboe wrote: > switch (bio_data_dir(bio)) { Ah yes, much nicer. > Maybe it would be more logical to assign 'default' priority in > bio_init(), in fact? What made me shy away from this is that bio_init and bio_alloc seem to get called from contexts where "current" wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the process that has actually initiated the IO. For example, I'm not sure if the calls from ide-scsi.c, when it builds requests piece by piece, are safe in this regard. The callers of submit_bio all seem to be more of the "classical" variety. - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/