On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 18:27 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote: > ..Or maybe just fix the basic timeout_*() API. Add a new timeout_reset() > call == timeout_remove() + timeout_add(original values) and then make > the implementation be fast with hundreds of timeouts. The timeouts are > currently kept in linked list, so that could be changed to red-black > tree I guess (sorted by next execution time). Or is there a better data > structure for this?
Continuing my monolog.. :)
There are only a few different idle timout values, so maybe the
idle_timeout_*() API is a good idea anyway. It allows the implementation
to be really fast and simple:
struct idle_timeout {
struct idle_timeout *prev, *next;
time_t next_run;
void *context;
};
So a doubly linked list for each different timeout value. Adding a new
timeout or reseting existing one moves the struct to last in the list.
When timeout handler runs, it needs to check only the first ones in the
list and move them to last.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
