On Wed, Oct 05 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 October 2005 16:11, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > That's exactly why the Linux ioprio stuff has been designed the way it
> > > is right now - it's not overengineered for something we cannot support
> > > anyways. The CFQ io priorities will work well enough for general use, if
> > > you are basing your business on GRIO it's a different game completely. I
> > > don't want to add kernel infrastructure for something that is very
> > > specialized, especially because the code to do so would be 10 times
> > > bigger and more complex that the current stuff..
> > Jens, I didn't mean to imply that you -should- have done a GRIO-type
> > design (and I doubt that Steve did, either.) My only point was that
> > GRIO and ioprio are two different IO control mechanisms.
> I suspect for most people they will be pretty much equivalent.
Indeed, only for the 'obscure' life-or-death type setups will there be a