[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10
- From: Jens Axboe <jens axboe oracle com>
- To: Theodore Tso <tytso mit edu>
- 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 <stellplatz-nr 13a datenparkplatz de>, mikew google com, jmoyer redhat com, nauman google com, Ingo Molnar <mingo elte hu>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com>, m-ikeda ds jp nec com, riel redhat com, lizf cn fujitsu com, fchecconi gmail com, containers lists linux-foundation org, Mike Galbraith <efault gmx de>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, akpm linux-foundation org, righi andrea gmail com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds linux-foundation org>
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 20:45:49 +0200
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
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]