On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 02:12:36PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
>
> Conclusion? You'll never notice the difference. Personally I have
> a slight preference for improving worst case behavior.
I've a preference for simpler structures; as long if pid lookup is
not a real problem
-- Alexandre
> Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:12:36 -0400
> From: Ted Unangst
>
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 14:13, Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:33:12PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> >> Instead of using a fixed size hash table for procs, use an rb tree.
> >>
> >> Makes thread/process lookup e
I'm ok with this.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 02:12:36PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 14:13, Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:33:12PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> >> Instead of using a fixed size hash table for procs, use an rb tree.
> >>
> >> Makes thre
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 14:13, Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:33:12PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
>> Instead of using a fixed size hash table for procs, use an rb tree.
>>
>> Makes thread/process lookup even more web scale.
>>
>
> any measurement?
o ye of little faith...
sto
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 02:13:04PM +0200, Alexandre Ratchov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:33:12PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > Instead of using a fixed size hash table for procs, use an rb tree.
> >
> > Makes thread/process lookup even more web scale.
> >
>
> any measurement?
>
It requi
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:33:12PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Instead of using a fixed size hash table for procs, use an rb tree.
>
> Makes thread/process lookup even more web scale.
>
any measurement?
-- Alexandre
Instead of using a fixed size hash table for procs, use an rb tree.
Makes thread/process lookup even more web scale.
Index: kern/init_main.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/init_main.c,v
retrieving revision 1.189
diff -u -p -r1.189 i
