On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 12:02:07PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 08/10/2019 11.31, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> >> On 07/10/2019 17.28, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 04:06:18PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wro
On 08/10/2019 11.31, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> On 07/10/2019 17.28, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 04:06:18PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>>>
>>> It feels like there is some rationale missing in the descripti
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 07/10/2019 17.28, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 04:06:18PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> >
> > It feels like there is some rationale missing in the description here.
> >
> > What is the benefit of repla
On 07/10/2019 17.28, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 04:06:18PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>
> It feels like there is some rationale missing in the description here.
>
> What is the benefit of replacing the explicit int_pow() with the
> implicit multiplications?
>
>
> Danie
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 04:06:18PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> The scheduler uses a (currently private) fixed_power_int() in its load
> average computation for computing powers of numbers 0 < x < 1
> expressed as fixed-point numbers, which is also what we want here. But
> that requires the sca
The scheduler uses a (currently private) fixed_power_int() in its load
average computation for computing powers of numbers 0 < x < 1
expressed as fixed-point numbers, which is also what we want here. But
that requires the scale to be a power-of-2.
We could (and a following patch will) change to us
