From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751124AbVHXQfV (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:35:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751139AbVHXQfV (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:35:21 -0400 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.193]:2580 "EHLO zproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751124AbVHXQfU convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:35:20 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Tw+HpE0tNQDzMflmJlSRF8T2MMR9RwPuhpMHUgy4zbWbQeCQbC3vGB7uhIA9E+OB1oS4qISBMDeIPx4fNaoY6XPh+JdGETVFkl8vL1qeGSE0/cdDcGg5SYOJu6DSzBFFnWlxkqZrbYFbDJcmrVJrrLOC0nSnGhPX3jL5WyXK52I= Message-ID: <9a87484905082409356c549512@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:35:16 +0200 From: Jesper Juhl To: danial_thom@yahoo.com Subject: Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems Cc: Patrick McHardy , Helge Hafting , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20050824162425.62228.qmail@web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <430B5B14.5070105@trash.net> <20050824162425.62228.qmail@web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8/24/05, Danial Thom wrote: > --- Patrick McHardy 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. > I hope you're implying that the answer is; no, it's not expected that 2.6 is less useful in a UP setup than 2.4 :-) -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html