Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:32:20 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: gibbs@plutotech.com (Justin T. Gibbs), nate@mt.sri.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf files src/sys/dev/vx if_vx.c if_vxreg.h src/sys/i386/apm apm.c src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC files.i386 Message-ID: <199709221932.NAA02277@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199709221926.MAA16814@usr06.primenet.com> References: <199709221559.JAA17865@pluto.plutotech.com> <199709221926.MAA16814@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >A more deterministic implementation would associate an absolute tick > > >value (rather than a count) with each entry, and insert entries in > > >sorted order. > > > > More deterministic for who? This trades O(1) insertion for O(hash chain > > length) insertion so that softclock will become O(timeouts for the current > > tick). As timeout often is called from an interrupt context > > it is not so clear where it is better to pay the price of non-determinism. > > I'm not so sure timeouts should be called from an interrupt context, > ever. [ rest deleted ] We're talking reality here Terry, not theory. 'If the world were a perfect place, we wouldn't need interrupts since we could get everything done when we needed to and it wouldn't mess with anything else, but this isn't a perfect world.' The extra complexity required to do your above solution is *WAY* overkill. (I've done things such as it on a small-scale basis, and performance starts to drop off quickly due to data synchronization when you have lots of 'objects/drivers'.) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709221932.NAA02277>