Amdahl's law is only related in the sense that they are both
dealing with concurrency. It deals with diminishing returns due to parts of programs that can't take advantage of parallel processing.
The OP is saying that there are techniques that hurt latency and increase throughput, but not necessarily vice versa (except unwinding techniques going the other way), so it makes sense to focus on latency first.
It's an interesting theory, and I've filed it away as something to ponder, but I'm not sure in what use cases it's valid for.
If you've got a stream of independent non trivial requests, then the best throughput strategy is to process each request on one thread; almost all computing resources are focused on the problem at hand.
The best latency strategy is to devote all threads to each request in turn (assuming this gives a speedup). The communication overhead will increase the CPU cost of dealing with each request, hurting overall throughput (if you process two requests simultaneously, your latency will explode).
In this scenario, it's a simple trade off and thus doesn't seem to fit. Of course, nothing real world is this idealized, and the devil in the details is probably where the OP's law fits in.
The OP is saying that there are techniques that hurt latency and increase throughput, but not necessarily vice versa (except unwinding techniques going the other way), so it makes sense to focus on latency first.
It's an interesting theory, and I've filed it away as something to ponder, but I'm not sure in what use cases it's valid for.
If you've got a stream of independent non trivial requests, then the best throughput strategy is to process each request on one thread; almost all computing resources are focused on the problem at hand.
The best latency strategy is to devote all threads to each request in turn (assuming this gives a speedup). The communication overhead will increase the CPU cost of dealing with each request, hurting overall throughput (if you process two requests simultaneously, your latency will explode).
In this scenario, it's a simple trade off and thus doesn't seem to fit. Of course, nothing real world is this idealized, and the devil in the details is probably where the OP's law fits in.