xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The XFS real-time subvolume in Linux

To: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: The XFS real-time subvolume in Linux
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 09:11:10 -0500
Cc: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20051005084117.GF3511@xxxxxxx>
References: <BAY110-F272BEC2E5C429160FB4068B4830@xxxxxxx> <p73u0fxz4xa.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4342A2AB.4040700@xxxxxxx> <200510041759.15075.ak@xxxxxxx> <4342AAD3.8060102@xxxxxxx> <20051005084117.GF3511@xxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716)
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.

-Eric


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>