From owner-freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 4 19:07:41 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDCA106566B; Thu, 4 Nov 2010 19:07:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hselasky@c2i.net) Received: from swip.net (mailfe01.swip.net [212.247.154.1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE618FC08; Thu, 4 Nov 2010 19:07:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Cloudmark-Score: 0.000000 [] X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=omSrwDgyMf70S47Fr5SNr0rQzcmIOo0IafWlB/wSLLo= c=1 sm=1 a=FberXtVRn-wA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=CL8lFSKtTFcA:10 a=i9M/sDlu2rpZ9XS819oYzg==:17 a=qRdCxWWPLfbE3fxGEroA:9 a=UEHWcmcm-zK5qilDy1FloXSCRVoA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=i9M/sDlu2rpZ9XS819oYzg==:117 Received: from [188.126.198.129] (account mc467741@c2i.net HELO laptop002.hselasky.homeunix.org) by mailfe01.swip.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.19) with ESMTPA id 45408163; Thu, 04 Nov 2010 20:07:38 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky To: Matthew Fleming Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 20:08:47 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.1-STABLE; KDE/4.4.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201011012054.59551.hselasky@c2i.net> <201011041941.09662.hselasky@c2i.net> In-Reply-To: X-Face: +~\`s("[*|O,="7?X@L.elg*F"OA\I/3%^p8g?ab%RN'(; _IjlA: hGE..Ew, XAQ*o#\/M~SC=S1-f9{EzRfT'|Hhll5Q]ha5Bt-s|oTlKMusi:1e[wJl}kd}GR Z0adGx-x_0zGbZj'e(Y[(UNle~)8CQWXW@:DX+9)_YlB[tIccCPN$7/L' MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201011042008.47703.hselasky@c2i.net> Cc: John Baldwin , Weongyo Jeong , 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 X-BeenThere: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD support for USB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 19:07:41 -0000 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