Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:44:04 -0400 | From | Jeff Sipek <> | Subject | Fwd: Re: Use of AI for process scheduling |
| |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Monday 08 September 2003 18:56, you wrote: > Well, we have this to deal with: Someone is exercising the scheduler > and notices some kind of misscheduling which causes the system to crawl. > > How are they going to get to the /proc and /sys directories to do much > of anything? The system is completely unresponsive. Furthermore, even > if the system IS responsive, we need some way to for the user to hit a > key and freeze the current state for examination. Some slow-downs last > only seconds, but we need to be able to catch them.
Agreed.
> You talk about weights. Would the linux community be willing to put a > neural net into the kernel? I'm sure we could optimize it to not take a > lot of processing overhead, but it's an "unknown". It would be scary to > some people to be unable to disect the actual workings of it and have no > way of determining corner-case behavior from examining code. But if we > have, say, only a 2-layer neural net, we might still be able to > reverse-engineer it.
I meant weights in a more general way - variables in calculations is more appropriate. Neural nets can do a lot of interesting things, but they really need optimization. If we were to use them, we should make it a config option in the kernel (nnet or standard scheduler.)
Jeff.
- -- Trust me, you don't want me doing _anything_ first thing in the morning. - Linus Torvalds -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/XRRHwFP0+seVj/4RAs3KAJ9IISM5bALaOTCJtSWxPDlHxOGVEwCfedgD bCPO9/Mf1dtmA4zVgGP2Tcc= =vrNw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- 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/
| |