Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems | From | Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <> | Date | Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:02:13 -0700 |
| |
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.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |