Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Busy-waiting itself can be made much less wasteful by using a delay function (e.g., sleep()) found in most operating systems. This puts a thread to sleep for a specified time, during which the thread will waste no CPU time. If the loop is checking something simple then it will spend most of its time asleep and will waste very little CPU time.
The running time of LPT is dominated by the sorting, which takes O(n log n) time, where n is the number of inputs. LPT is monotone in the sense that, if one of the input numbers increases, the objective function (the largest sum or the smallest sum of a subset in the output) weakly increases. [2] This is in contrast to Multifit algorithm.
An example is the Newton–Raphson iteration applied to finding the square root of a number. [4] Another example that uses anytime algorithms is trajectory problems when you're aiming for a target; the object is moving through space while waiting for the algorithm to finish and even an approximate answer can significantly improve its accuracy ...
In Unix and other POSIX-compatible systems, the parent process can retrieve the exit status of a child process using the wait() family of system calls defined in wait.h. [10] Of these, the waitid() [11] call retrieves the full exit status, but the older wait() and waitpid() [12] calls retrieve only the least significant 8 bits of the exit status.
where as above is the Laplace–Stieltjes transform of the service time distribution function. This relationship can only be solved exactly in special cases (such as the M/M/1 queue ), but for any s {\textstyle s} the value of ϕ ( s ) {\textstyle \phi (s)} can be calculated and by iteration with upper and lower bounds the distribution function ...
After time t, thread 1 reaches barrier3 but it will have to wait for threads 2 and 3 and the correct data again. Thus, in barrier synchronization of multiple threads there will always be a few threads that will end up waiting for other threads as in the above example thread 1 keeps waiting for thread 2 and 3.
The result is an indefinite postponement until the thread holding the lock can finish and release it. This is especially true on a single-processor system, where each waiting thread of the same priority is likely to waste its quantum (allocated time where a thread can run) spinning until the thread that holds the lock is finally finished.
At this point, the CPU sits idle. The CPU-bound process will then move back to the ready queue and be allocated the CPU. Again, all the I/O processes end up waiting in the ready queue until the CPU-bound process is done. There is a convoy effect as all the other processes wait for the one big process to get off the CPU. This effect results in ...