From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762289AbZENBDP (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 21:03:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754181AbZENBC6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 21:02:58 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:57378 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753228AbZENBC6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 21:02:58 -0400 Message-ID: <4A0B6D8D.6060202@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 09:02:05 +0800 From: Gui Jianfeng User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vivek Goyal 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 References: <1241553525-28095-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <4A0A29B5.7030109@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090513152909.GD7696@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20090513152909.GD7696@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Vivek Goyal wrote: > 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? Sure > >> + 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"? OK -- Regards Gui Jianfeng