Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Big ohBig ohPosted Aug 1, 2003 16:23 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: Fixing interactive response in 2.6 by Peter Parent article: Fixing interactive response in 2.6 I don't know the significance of the big-oh (we're not doing complexity analysis, after all) Yes, I believe we're doing complexity analysis. My understanding is that O(1) refers to the fact that the time it takes the scheduler to choose a process to run does not vary with the number of processes there are. By contrast, an O(n) scheduler might run down the list of processes looking for the best one to run.
(Log in to post comments)
Big oh Posted Aug 3, 2003 6:43 UTC (Sun) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] Yes, I believe we're doing complexity analysis. My understanding is that O(1) refers to Yes, I know what an O(1) scheduler is. (Sheesh, give me a little credit.) What I don't know is why an O11int scheduler would be called an O11int scheduler (other than the obvious fact that it came after the O10int scheduler). The big-oh here is clearly not referring to an asymptotic worst-case runtime. Ingo Molnar uses a combination of letter + number to designate different versions of his patches. Perhaps Con is doing the same thing. But, maybe I'm just not paying attention, but I never saw the A through N series of interactivity patches.
|
|||||||||||