From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753722AbZJBSpr (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 14:45:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752799AbZJBSpr (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 14:45:47 -0400 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:59503 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751071AbZJBSpq (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 14:45:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 20:45:49 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Theodore Tso 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 Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10 Message-ID: <20091002184549.GS31616@kernel.dk> 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> <20091002183649.GE8161@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091002183649.GE8161@mit.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -- Jens Axboe From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10 Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 20:45:49 +0200 Message-ID: <20091002184549.GS31616@kernel.dk> 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> <20091002183649.GE8161@mit.edu> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091002183649.GE8161@mit.edu> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Theodore Tso Cc: dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, dpshah@google.com, agk@redhat.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, jmarchan@redhat.com, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, Ulrich Lukas , mikew@google.com, jmoyer@redhat.com, nauman@google.com, Ingo Molnar , Vivek Goyal , m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, riel@redhat.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Mike Galbraith , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, righi.andrea@gmail.com, Linus Torvalds List-Id: dm-devel.ids 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. -- Jens Axboe