Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 18:15:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: msmith@FreeBSD.ORG (Mike Smith) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), dfr@nlsystems.com (Doug Rabson), msmith@FreeBSD.ORG (Mike Smith), n_hibma@calcaphon.com (Nick Hibma), arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: A new api for asynchronous task execution Message-ID: <200005171815.LAA07310@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <200005171758.KAA07014@mass.cdrom.com> from "Mike Smith" at May 17, 2000 10:58:42 AM
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. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?200005171815.LAA07310>