On Wed, Oct 05 2005, 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.
Oh I agree, was mainly trying to clarify that they pertain to two
different market segments. Sorry if that wasn't clear, it's not a
criticism of GRIO (I don't really know anything about SGI's GRIO).