From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10 Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 14:36:49 -0400 Message-ID: <20091002183649.GE8161@mit.edu> References: <20091002145610.GD31616@kernel.dk> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091002180437.GL31616@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Ingo Molnar , 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 List-Id: dm-devel.ids 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. - Ted