Nils, >> My main concern is the stability and performance of the system when >> changes are made to a sensitive >> area such as rpcmod. Simpler change is easier to understand and >> verify, less chance of introducing new >> bug, less impact to performance of the code. > > Now I got your point and I agree in the general case. I am also aware > of the significance of this piece of code and I do definitely want to > avoid any regressions here. > > In this particular case, however, I think we should really aim for a > solution which also does away with some legacy code with sets an > initial barrier for understanding the code. By not removing this code, > that barrier would be raised, IMHO, because the solution you suggested > adds even more complexity. I respectfully disagree. The original logic for load balancing is pretty straight forward and easy to understand. Unfortunately, the time stamp resolution used is not fine enough causing the side effect resulting in the last entry always being selected for the remainder of the clock tick. Perhaps the suggested fix should be better commented to point out the problem and how the change addresses it.
-Dai
