On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 15/02/17 15:49, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Enhance mmc_blk_data_prep() to support CQE requests. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Hey: >> >>> +#include <linux/ioprio.h> >> (...) >>> + if (IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(req_get_ioprio(req)) == IOPRIO_CLASS_RT) >>> + brq->data.flags |= MMC_DATA_PRIO; >> >> What is this? > > It is the command queue priority. > > The command queue supports 2 priorities: "high" (1) and "simple" (0). The > eMMC will give "high" priority tasks priority over "simple" priority tasks. > > So here we give priority to IOPRIO_CLASS_RT which seems appropriate. So if I understand correctly, you are obtaining the block layer scheduling priorities, that can (only?) be set by ionice has from the command line? We need to discuss this with the block maintainers. I'm not so sure about the future of this. The IOPRIO is only used with the CFQ scheduler, only two other sites in the kernel use this and MQ and its schedulers surely does not have ionice handling as far as I know. The BFQ does not use it, AFAIK it is using different heuristics to prioritize block traffic, and that does not include using ionice hints. Is ionice:ing something we're really going to do going forward? Should this be repurposed so that the block scheduler use this prio to communicate to the driver layer to prioritize certain traffic? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
