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