Jamie Locker wrote:
>
> Mark Salisbury wrote:
> > > The complexity comes in when you want to maintain indexes into the list
> > > for quick insertion of new timers. To get the current insert
> > > performance, for example, you would need pointers to (at least) each of
> > > the next 256 centasecond boundaries in the list. But the list ages, so
> > > these pointers need to be continually updated. The thought I had was to
> > > update needed pointers (and only those needed) each time an insert was
> > > done and a needed pointer was found to be missing or stale. Still it
> > > adds complexity that the static structure used now doesn't have.
> >
> > actually, I think a head and tail pointer would be sufficient for most
> > cases. (most new timers are either going to be a new head of list or a new
> > tail, i.e. long duration timeouts that will never be serviced or short
> > duration timers that are going to go off "real soon now (tm)") the oddball
> > cases would be mostly coming from user-space, i.e. nanosleep which a longerr
> > list insertion disapears in the block/wakeup/context switch overhead
>
> A pointer-based priority queue is really not a very complex thing, and
> there are ways to optimise them for typical cases like the above.
>
Please do enlighten me. The big problem in my mind is that the
pointers, pointing at points in time, are perishable.
George
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
