Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:37:37 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 11/39] autonuma: CPU follow memory algorithm |
| |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:39:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > You can talk pretty much anything down to O(1) that way. Take an > algorithm that is O(n) in the number of tasks, since you know you have a > pid-space constraint of 30bits you can never have more than 2^30 (aka > 1Gi) tasks, hence your algorithm is O(2^30) aka O(1).
Still this O notation thingy... This is not about the max value but about the fact the number is _variable_ or _fixed_.
If you have a variable amount of entries (and variable amount of memory) in a list it's O(N) where N is the number of entries (even if we know the max ram is maybe 4TB?). If you've a _fixed_ number of them it's O(1). Even if the fixed number is very large.
It basically shows it won't degraded depending on load, and the cost per-schedule remains exactly fixed at all times (non liner cacheline and out-of-order CPU execution/HT effects aside).
If it was O(N) the time this would take to run for each schedule shall have to vary at runtime depending on a some variable factor N and that's not the case here.
You can argue about CPU hotplug though.
But this is just math nitpicking because I already pointed out I agree the cacheline hits on a 1024 way would be measurable and needs fixing.
I'm not sure how useful it is to keep arguing on the O notation when we agree on what shall be optimized in practice.
| |