From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932263AbVHWSCV (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:02:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932266AbVHWSCV (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:02:21 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:52215 "EHLO av.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932263AbVHWSCV (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:02:21 -0400 Subject: Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems From: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich To: danial_thom@yahoo.com Cc: Helge Hafting , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20050823171028.47315.qmail@web33309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050823171028.47315.qmail@web33309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:02:13 -0700 Message-Id: <1124820134.15265.30.camel@imap.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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". latency n 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 latency] 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 latency.