Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754529AbZJBTJe (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:09:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753767AbZJBTJd (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:09:33 -0400 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:41104 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753111AbZJBTJd (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:09:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 21:09:36 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Ingo Molnar 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: <20091002190936.GT31616@kernel.dk> 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> <20091002190110.GA25297@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091002190110.GA25297@elte.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1560 Lines: 37 On Fri, Oct 02 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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. Alright, I'll acknowledge that if that's the general consensus. I may be somewhat biased myself. -- Jens Axboe -- 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/