Maybe it should be renamed to 'query uncapability' ? If you have a bigger capability number (i.e. more capabilities :), you should be faster.
It's also interesting that Linux seems to give you way more info about HW with /proc/sysinfo than is easily obtainable from VM. Marcy Cortes "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation." -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Nielsen Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [IBMVM] QUERY CAPABILITY question In all seriousness, lower=faster is no more a restricting factor than = higher=faster. In either methodology you're going to run out of bits a= nd whether it's at the high end (overflow) or the low end (underflow) is irrelevant. When the condition approaches you either need to add more = bits (to the left or right as appropriate), adjust the range of values = generated, or switch to a floating point representation (which only postpones using the first two options). The main disadvantage of the current lower=faster using integers is the increasing rate of loss of = precision as zero is approached due to truncating/rounding of data. Brian Nielsen On Wed, 2 May 2007 12:50:21 -0400, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>= wrote: >On Wednesday, 05/02/2007 at 09:02 MST, "Schuh, Richard" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: >> However, zero will be a limit --- and you need to multiply by 50% >> (expressed as .5) to divide by 2. If you divide by .5, the result >> will= >> be an ever increasing value. (10 / .5 = 100 / 5 = 20) > >Now you guys cut that out! You know what I meant. Eventually >everythin= g >turns to a value of 1 since you would never willingly round a capacity >number *down*. A specialty engine could have 100 times the capacity of >= a >CP, yet both would show a '1' for a sufficiently powerful CP. > >Alan Altmark >z/VM Development >IBM Endicott >========================= ========================== ========================
