Re: [PATCH] Time sliced CFQ #2

Con Kolivas
2004-12-06T02:35:13Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1144 bytes --]

Jeff Sipek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:59:43PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
>>First the ioprio should be set to
>>what the cpu 'nice' level is as a sort of global "this is the priority
>>of this task" setting. Then it should also support changing of this
>>priority with a different call separate from the cpu nice. That way we
>>can take into account access privileges of the caller making it
>>impossible to set a high ioprio if the task itself is heavily niced by a
>>superuser and so on.
>
>
> This sounds very reasonable. How would a situation like this one get
> handeled:
>
> nice = x
> io_prio = y
>
> where x!=y
>
> then, user changes nice. Does the nice level change alone? If so,
> providing some "reset to nice==io_prio" capability would make sense, no?

I think when nice is changed, ioprio needs to be changed with it as a
sane default action. I suspect that most of the time people will not use
the separate ioprio call, but using 'nice' is a regular linuxy thing to
do. Ideally we make ioprio part of the 'nice' utility and we specify
both at the same time. Something like:
nice -n 5 -i 20 blah

Cheers,
Con

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]