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.