Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On 5/3/18 4:43 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:24:58PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 5/3/18 2:15 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: >>> On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: Or we could just make ki_hint a u8 or u16 ... seems unlikely we'll need 32 bits of ki_hint.

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On 5/3/18 4:43 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:24:58PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 5/3/18 2:15 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: >>> On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: Or we could just make ki_hint a u8 or u16 ... seems unlikely we'll need 32 bits of ki_hint.

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:24:58PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/3/18 2:15 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: > > On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >> Or we could just make ki_hint a u8 or u16 ... seems unlikely we'll need > >> 32 bits of ki_hint. (currently defined values are 1-5) > > > > I

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:24:58PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/3/18 2:15 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: > > On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >> Or we could just make ki_hint a u8 or u16 ... seems unlikely we'll need > >> 32 bits of ki_hint. (currently defined values are 1-5) > > > > I

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On 5/3/18 2:58 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: > > > On 5/3/18 1:24 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 5/3/18 2:15 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzana...@wdc.com wrote: > If we want to avoid bloating

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On 5/3/18 2:58 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: > > > On 5/3/18 1:24 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 5/3/18 2:15 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzana...@wdc.com wrote: > If we want to avoid bloating

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On 5/3/18 1:24 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/3/18 2:15 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: >> >> >> On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzana...@wdc.com wrote: If we want to avoid bloating struct kiocb, I suggest we turn the private

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On 5/3/18 1:24 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/3/18 2:15 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: >> >> >> On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzana...@wdc.com wrote: If we want to avoid bloating struct kiocb, I suggest we turn the private

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On 5/3/18 2:15 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: > > > On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzana...@wdc.com wrote: >>> If we want to avoid bloating struct kiocb, I suggest we turn the private >>> field >>> into a union of the private and

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On 5/3/18 2:15 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote: > > > On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzana...@wdc.com wrote: >>> If we want to avoid bloating struct kiocb, I suggest we turn the private >>> field >>> into a union of the private and

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On 5/3/18 11:36 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Hi, Adam, Hello Jeff, > > adam.manzana...@wdc.com writes: > >> From: Adam Manzanares >> >> This is the per-I/O equivalent of the ioprio_set system call. >> >> When IOCB_FLAG_IOPRIO is set on the iocb aio_flags field, then we

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On 5/3/18 11:36 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Hi, Adam, Hello Jeff, > > adam.manzana...@wdc.com writes: > >> From: Adam Manzanares >> >> This is the per-I/O equivalent of the ioprio_set system call. >> >> When IOCB_FLAG_IOPRIO is set on the iocb aio_flags field, then we set the >> newly added

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzana...@wdc.com wrote: >> If we want to avoid bloating struct kiocb, I suggest we turn the private >> field >> into a union of the private and ki_ioprio field. It seems like the users of >> the private

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On 5/3/18 11:33 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzana...@wdc.com wrote: >> If we want to avoid bloating struct kiocb, I suggest we turn the private >> field >> into a union of the private and ki_ioprio field. It seems like the users of >> the private

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

Hi, Adam, adam.manzana...@wdc.com writes: > From: Adam Manzanares > > This is the per-I/O equivalent of the ioprio_set system call. > > When IOCB_FLAG_IOPRIO is set on the iocb aio_flags field, then we set the > newly added kiocb ki_ioprio field to the value in the iocb

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

Hi, Adam, adam.manzana...@wdc.com writes: > From: Adam Manzanares > > This is the per-I/O equivalent of the ioprio_set system call. > > When IOCB_FLAG_IOPRIO is set on the iocb aio_flags field, then we set the > newly added kiocb ki_ioprio field to the value in the iocb aio_reqprio field. > >

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzana...@wdc.com wrote: > If we want to avoid bloating struct kiocb, I suggest we turn the private > field > into a union of the private and ki_ioprio field. It seems like the users of > the private field all use it at a point where we can yank

Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:21:14AM -0700, adam.manzana...@wdc.com wrote: > If we want to avoid bloating struct kiocb, I suggest we turn the private > field > into a union of the private and ki_ioprio field. It seems like the users of > the private field all use it at a point where we can yank

[PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

From: Adam Manzanares This is the per-I/O equivalent of the ioprio_set system call. When IOCB_FLAG_IOPRIO is set on the iocb aio_flags field, then we set the newly added kiocb ki_ioprio field to the value in the iocb aio_reqprio field. When a bio is created for an aio

[PATCH v2] fs: Add aio iopriority support for block_dev

From: Adam Manzanares This is the per-I/O equivalent of the ioprio_set system call. When IOCB_FLAG_IOPRIO is set on the iocb aio_flags field, then we set the newly added kiocb ki_ioprio field to the value in the iocb aio_reqprio field. When a bio is created for an aio request by the block dev