From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 30 19:26:19 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0759A16A4AB for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:26:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D809443CA2 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:26:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kAUJQ1ji003967; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:26:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:05:51 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <200611292147.kATLll4m048223@apollo.backplane.com> <11606.1164837711@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611301105.51983.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:26:02 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.3/2263/Thu Nov 30 01:51:08 2006 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: Ivan Voras Subject: Re: a proposed callout API X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:26:19 -0000 On Thursday 30 November 2006 09:52, Ivan Voras wrote: > Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <200611292147.kATLll4m048223@apollo.backplane.com>, Matthew Dillon w > > rites: > > > >> The difference between you and me, Poul, is that you always try to play > >> cute tricks with words when you intend to insult someone. Me? I just > >> go ahead and insult them explicitly. > > > > I can do that too: You're a pompous asshole who doesn't know what > > you're talking about. > > > > Now, does that make you feel better ? > > > >> In anycase, I think the relevance of my comments is clear to anyone who > >> has followed the project. Are you guys so stuck up on performance > >> that you are willing to seriously pollute your APIs just to get rid of > >> a few multiplications and divisions? > > > > You have your project and we have ours. > > > > You make your choices, we make ours. > > > > You have your mailing lists, we have ours. > > > > CTRL-D for all I care. > > No trying to take sides here, but for us willing to learn here, what > exactly are the problems in Matt Dillon's suggestions? From a novice's > POV, having per-cpu queues looks (emphasis: looks) very scalable and > performant. I don't think phk@ is ruling out per-cpu callout wheels. I know it is something I've thought about myself for a while now. One of the goals of the change is to make things a bit more abstract and less tick-centric (i.e. specify timeouts in real time units like nanoseconds or seconds rather than tick counts based on a hz periodic timer). Whether or not there are per-cpu callouts is really an implementation detail rather than an API one. -- John Baldwin