From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "tj@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Enabling ATA Command Priorities Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:48:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20160929084834.GD11087@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1475000096-6148-1-git-send-email-adam.manzanares@hgst.com> <20160928020610.GA28998@infradead.org> <5C8FF242-7C7B-442E-A6FF-89878366F154@hgst.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-yw0-f195.google.com ([209.85.161.195]:36546 "EHLO mail-yw0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753248AbcI2Isp (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2016 04:48:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5C8FF242-7C7B-442E-A6FF-89878366F154@hgst.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Adam Manzanares Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "axboe@kernel.dk" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" Hello, On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 03:43:32AM +0000, Adam Manzanares wrote: > I prefer having the feature conditional so you can use the CFQ > scheduler with I/O priorities as is. If you decide to enable the > feature then the priorities will be passed down to the drive in > addition to the work that the CFQ scheduler does. Since this feature > may change the user perceived performance of the device I want to > make sure they know what they are getting into. Yeah, I prefer to have it behind an explicit flag given the history of optional ATA features. The feature is unlikely to matter to a lot of people and is almost bound to break existing RT prio usages. Thanks. -- tejun