On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:33:20PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > I think what we're going to have to do is have a way to mark > filehandes as either eager for destruction or lazy for destruction. > (I'm not sure which, it depends on the default Larry chooses) That > way there'll at least be some way to mark a filehandle as not needing > immediate destruction, so that if there aren't any > immediate-destruction filehandles (or other objects) around then we > don't trigger the DOD with the lazysweep op.
I would have hoped that simply putting "lazy" on any filehandle opened read only on a regular file would be good enough as a win. And if anything places a lock on that file handle then it turns "eager". Everything else starts out eager, and (obviously) lazy handles are garbage collected like memory. But until we have real sized programs running I don't think we can tell, so it's probably too early to get too far into thinking about this. Time would be better spent helping Jürgen Bömmels with the IO rewrite. Nicholas Clark
