Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10

[Jens Axboe]

On Fri, Oct 02 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/