On Mon 20-02-23 21:54:28, Hou Tao wrote:
> From: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Since commit a78418e6a04c ("block: Always initialize bio IO priority on
> submit"), bio->bi_ioprio will never be IOPRIO_CLASS_NONE when calling
> blkcg_set_ioprio(), so there will be no way to promote the io-priority
> of one cgroup to IOPRIO_CLASS_RT, because bi_ioprio will always be
> greater than or equals to IOPRIO_CLASS_RT.
>
> It seems possible to call blkcg_set_ioprio() first then try to
> initialize bi_ioprio later in bio_set_ioprio(), but this doesn't work
> for bio in which bi_ioprio is already initialized (e.g., direct-io), so
> introduce a new ioprio policy to promote the iopriority of bio to
> IOPRIO_CLASS_RT if the ioprio is not already RT.
>
> So introduce a new promote-to-rt policy to achieve this. For none-to-rt
> policy, although it doesn't work now, but considering that its purpose
> was also to override the io-priority to RT and allow for a smoother
> transition, just keep it and treat it as an alias of the promote-to-rt
> policy.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Looks good to me. Feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Just one question regarding doc below:
> ++----------------+---+
> +| no-change | 0 |
> ++----------------+---+
> +| rt-to-be | 2 |
> ++----------------+---+
> +| all-to-idle | 3 |
> ++----------------+---+
Shouldn't there be preempt-to-rt somewhere in this table as well? Or why
this this in the doc at all? I'd consider the numbers to be kernel internal
thing?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
