Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756795AbZJBTCP (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:02:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754353AbZJBTCP (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:02:15 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:55795 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751622AbZJBTCO (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:02:14 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 21:01:10 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jens Axboe Cc: Theodore Tso , Linus Torvalds , Mike Galbraith , Vivek Goyal , Ulrich Lukas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mikew@google.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, ryov@valinux.co.jp, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, jmoyer@redhat.com, dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, righi.andrea@gmail.com, m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, agk@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, jmarchan@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10 Message-ID: <20091002190110.GA25297@elte.hu> References: <20091002171129.GG31616@kernel.dk> <20091002172046.GA2376@elte.hu> <20091002172554.GJ31616@kernel.dk> <20091002172842.GA4884@elte.hu> <20091002173732.GK31616@kernel.dk> <20091002175629.GA14860@elte.hu> <20091002180437.GL31616@kernel.dk> <20091002183649.GE8161@mit.edu> <20091002184549.GS31616@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091002184549.GS31616@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1364 Lines: 31 * Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02 2009, Theodore Tso wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 08:04:37PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > i'd say 'latency' describes it even better. 'interactivity' as a term is > > > > a bit overladen. > > > > > > I'm not too crazy about it either. How about just using 'desktop' > > > since this is obviously what we are really targetting? 'latency' > > > isn't fully descriptive either, since it may not necessarily > > > provide the best single IO latency (noop would). > > > > As Linus has already pointed out, it's not necessarily "desktop" > > versus "server". There will be certain high frequency transaction > > database workloads (for example) that will very much care about > > latency. I think "low_latency" may be the best term to use. > > Not necessarily, but typically it will be. As already noted, I don't > think latency itself is a very descriptive term for this. Why not? Nobody will think of 'latency' as something that requires noop, but as something that in practice achieves low latencies, for stuff that people use. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/