linux-kernel - Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 2 Oct 2009 21:01:10 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Ulrich Lukas <stellplatz-nr.13a@...enparkplatz.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	nauman@...gle.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	mikew@...gle.com, fchecconi@...il.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
	ryov@...inux.co.jp, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, jmoyer@...hat.com,
	dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	righi.andrea@...il.com, m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, agk@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	jmarchan@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10


* Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> 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.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/