Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems
From: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich
Date: Tue Aug 23 2005 - 13:02:52 EST
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 10:10 -0700, Danial Thom wrote:
> > >Ok, well you'll have to explain this one:
> > >
> > >"Low latency comes at the cost of decreased
> > >throughput - can't have both"
> > >
> > >
> > Configuring "preempt" gives lower latency,
> > because then
> > almost anything can be interrupted (preempted).
> > You can then
> > get very quick responses to some things, i.e.
> > interrupts and such.
> I think part of the problem is the continued
> misuse of the word "latency". Latency, in
> language terms, means "unexplained delay".
1: (computer science) the time it takes for a specific block of data on
a data track to rotate around to the read/write head [syn: rotational
2: the time that elapses between a stimulus and the response to it [syn:
reaction time, response time, latent period]
3: the state of being not yet evident or active
No apparent references to "unexplained" in association with the word
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/