Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 20:22:22 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), julian@whistle.com, gibbs@plutotech.com, bde@zeta.org.au, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new timeout routines Message-ID: <199709250222.UAA16284@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199709250017.RAA02618@usr03.primenet.com> References: <199709241523.JAA12165@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199709250017.RAA02618@usr03.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Untimeout this particular timeout without traversing the whole list > > > of possible timeouts. > > > > Build a hash list that uses the (fn, args) parameter at timeout time > > (which is what the result of the cookie is), and then get to the timeout > > via hashing back on this with untimeout(fn, args). No need for the > > drivers to hold onto the cookie, since you have all the necessary > > information. > > Which bucket is an 8 tick timeout in? It's going to be in the current > bucket or any one of the 7 following it, depending on how many sofclocks > have happenend since the queue. We're not hashing on the tick, we're hashing on the function/arguements. The result of the hash gives us a pointer to the exact element. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709250222.UAA16284>