Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 20:08:47 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> To: Matthew Fleming <mdf356@gmail.com> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, Weongyo Jeong <weongyo.jeong@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-usb@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Outline of USB process integration in the kernel taskqueue system Message-ID: <201011042008.47703.hselasky@c2i.net> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin3Zp82KDJiunS1A1Wf3bSeWGFxh8wTc4Gu6551@mail.gmail.com> References: <201011012054.59551.hselasky@c2i.net> <201011041941.09662.hselasky@c2i.net> <AANLkTin3Zp82KDJiunS1A1Wf3bSeWGFxh8wTc4Gu6551@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote: > For the purpose of speed, I'm not opposed to breaking the KBI by using > a doubly-linked TAILQ, but I don't think the difference will matter > all that often (perhaps I'm wrong and some taskqueues have dozens of > pending tasks?) Hi, In my case we are talking about 10-15 tasks at maximum. But still (10*9) / 2 = 45 iterations is much more than 2 steps to do the unlink. Anyway. I will have a look at your work and suggest a new patch for my needs. --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201011042008.47703.hselasky>