From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261641AbVGZEbZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:31:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261648AbVGZEbZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:31:25 -0400 Received: from agminet03.oracle.com ([141.146.126.230]:35919 "EHLO agminet03.oracle.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261641AbVGZEbX (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:31:23 -0400 Message-ID: <42E5BC9C.8060803@oracle.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:31:24 -0700 From: Zach Brown User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-1.3.3 (X11/20050513) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org CC: Jens Axboe Subject: setting task->ioprio from a kernel thread Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In OCFS2 there is currently an in-kernel heartbeat thread that really wants to communicate liveness to other nodes as quickly as possible by writing to a block device. Setting aside the specific wisdom of a kernel heartbeat thread for a bit, has it been considered that kernel threads might want to set their io priority with the task->ioprio bits? Neither set_task_ioprio() nor sys_ioprio_set() seem to be accessible to modules and open-coding it is clearly a bad idea. Would the universe be opposed to a _GPL() export of, say, the sys_() interface? - z