From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760142AbZEMPfv (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 11:35:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758156AbZEMPfl (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 11:35:41 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:58922 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754450AbZEMPfk (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 11:35:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 11:29:09 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal To: Gui Jianfeng Cc: nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mikew@google.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, jens.axboe@oracle.com, ryov@valinux.co.jp, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, taka@valinux.co.jp, jmoyer@redhat.com, dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, righi.andrea@gmail.com, agk@redhat.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, snitzer@redhat.com, m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] IO Controller: Add per-device weight and ioprio_class handling Message-ID: <20090513152909.GD7696@redhat.com> References: <1241553525-28095-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <4A0A29B5.7030109@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A0A29B5.7030109@cn.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:00:21AM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote: [..] > @@ -2137,7 +2366,7 @@ void elv_fq_unset_request_ioq(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq) > void bfq_init_entity(struct io_entity *entity, struct io_group *iog) > { > entity->ioprio = entity->new_ioprio; > - entity->weight = entity->new_weight; > + entity->weight = entity->new_weigh; > entity->ioprio_class = entity->new_ioprio_class; > entity->sched_data = &iog->sched_data; > } > diff --git a/block/elevator-fq.h b/block/elevator-fq.h > index db3a347..0407633 100644 > --- a/block/elevator-fq.h > +++ b/block/elevator-fq.h > @@ -253,6 +253,14 @@ struct io_group { > #endif > }; > > +struct policy_node { Would "io_policy_node" be better? > + struct list_head node; > + char dev_name[32]; > + void *key; > + unsigned long weight; > + unsigned long ioprio_class; > +}; > + > /** > * struct bfqio_cgroup - bfq cgroup data structure. > * @css: subsystem state for bfq in the containing cgroup. > @@ -269,6 +277,9 @@ struct io_cgroup { > > unsigned long weight, ioprio_class; > > + /* list of policy_node */ > + struct list_head list; > + How about "struct list_head policy_list" or "struct list_head io_policy"? Thanks Vivek