Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:24:25 -0700 (PDT) | From | Danial Thom <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems |
| |
--- Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> wrote:
> Danial Thom wrote: > > I think part of the problem is the continued > > misuse of the word "latency". Latency, in > > language terms, means "unexplained delay". > Its > > wrong here because for one, its explainable. > But > > it also depends on your perspective. The > > "latency" is increased for kernel tasks, > while it > > may be reduced for something that is getting > the > > benefit of preempting the kernel. So you > really > > can't say "the price of reduced latency is > lower > > throughput", because thats simply backwards. > > You've increased the kernel tasks latency by > > allowing it to be pre-empted. Reduced latency > > implies higher efficiency. All you've done > here > > is shift the latency from one task to > another, so > > there is no reduction overall, in fact there > is > > probably a marginal increase due to the > overhead > > of pre-emption vs doing nothing. > > If instead of complaining you would provide the > information > I've asked for two days ago someone might > actually be able > to help you.
Because gaining an understanding of how the settings work is better than having 30 guys telling me to tune something that is only going to make a marginal difference. I didn't ask you to tell me what was wrong with my setup, only whether its expected that 2.6 would be less useful in a UP setup than 2.4, which I think you've answered.
D
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - 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/
| |