Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Fri Oct 31 12:05:43 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75]) by merlot.usc.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9VJ5hXW020566 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:05:43 -0700 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9VJHSWK000342 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:17:28 -0700 Message-Id: <200810311917.m9VJHSWK000342@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: CS551 Final1 Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:17:28 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Hi Everyone, Just a clarification... Regarding busy-waiting, this is about taking up lots of CPU time *persistently*. So, if your node is eating up lots of CPU time for a long period of time (say 10 seconds), then this applies. If you only show up in "top" for one second and then disappaer, then it's not considered busy-waiting. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu -----Original Message----- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:44:23 -0700 From: Bill Cheng To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: CS551 Final1 Someone wrote: > What is the high percentage numbers for which it will be > considered a busy wait? 1%. Why not just fix the bug? I've described a very simple way to fix it. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu