Re: The XFS real-time subvolume in Linux

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>]

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