On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 7:31 AM Pratik Sampat <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for your comment. > > > On 12/05/20 11:07 pm, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Just a quick note.. > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 07:40:55PM +0530, Pratik Rajesh Sampat wrote: > > > >> + /* > >> + * Rearrange the weight distribution of the state, increase the weight > >> + * by the LEARNING RATE % for the idle state that was supposed to be > >> + * chosen and reduce by the same amount for rest of the states > >> + * > >> + * If the weights are greater than (100 - LEARNING_RATE) % or lesser > >> + * than LEARNING_RATE %, do not increase or decrease the confidence > >> + * respectively > >> + */ > >> + for (i = 0; i < drv->state_count; i++) { > >> + unsigned int delta; > >> + > >> + if (idx == -1) > >> + break; > >> + if (i == idx) { > >> + delta = (LEARNING_RATE * > >> cpu_data->state_mat[last_idx][i]) / 100; > > 100 is a crap number to divide by as a computer. We bio-puddings happend > > to have 10 digits, so 100 makes sense to us, but it does not to our > > binary friends. > > > > > Absolutely! I just wrote the code exactly the way I did the Math on paper, > definitely need to figure out an optimal way of doing things.
There is no particular reason to use percent in computations at all. You may as well use 1/1024 parts instead (and then use shifts instead of divisions).
