Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 12:15:44 -0700 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: msmith@FreeBSD.ORG (Mike Smith), dfr@nlsystems.com (Doug Rabson), n_hibma@calcaphon.com (Nick Hibma), arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: A new api for asynchronous task execution Message-ID: <200005171915.MAA00495@mass.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 May 2000 18:15:38 -0000." <200005171815.LAA07310@usr05.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > I do hope to be able to replace at least some of these pieces. I like the > > > > idea of a priority sorted list of tasks, probably using a priority field > > > > in struct task. > > > > > > Bletch. > > > > > > This is a job best handled by managing insertion order, rather than > > > by way of an explicit sort. Insertion order also keeps the structure > > > both small and generic. > > > > You specifically can't "manage insertion order", which is why the queues > > need to be sorted. Go look at the current problem set before making > > sweeping assertions like this. > > The "current problem set" or the "current implementation"? > > I know the current implementation can't handle it. > > I can probably give you references from as far back as the 1970's on > why it's possible in the context of the current problem set. > > The DDJ article on skiplists in ~1993 (source code available from > UUNET today) shows partially ordered insertion being applied to the > current problem set. Er, that's "sorting on insertion", not "managing insertion order". -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200005171915.MAA00495>