Il 10/01/2013 13:58, Peter Lieven ha scritto: > > Am 10.01.2013 um 13:15 schrieb Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>: > >> Il 10/01/2013 13:12, Peter Lieven ha scritto: >>>>> >>>>> But perhaps we do not need to start a slice at all when iolimits are >>>>> set. That is, do >>>>> >>>>> bs->slice_start = bs->slice_end = bs->slice_time = 0; >>>>> >>>>> or perhaps even nothing at all since bdrv_io_limits_disable should have >>>>> written those exact values. >>> Or it was set when the BlockDriverState was initialized. >>> >>> I am not familiar enough with the io limits code to decide if not starting >>> a slice >>> is also correct. >> >> I haven't tested it, but if it works, I think it is better. >> >> Think of it this way: it doesn't matter whether the first I/O operation >> comes immediately after limits are set, or 10 seconds later. In the >> latter case, bdrv_exceed_io_limits will _already_ start a new slice. It >> is better to be consistent and always delay the start of the slice. >> > > seems to be working as well. > > are you happy with: > > block: fix initialization in bdrv_io_limits_enable()
Sure. Paolo
