Hi Dai, >> 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.
That's fine. A constructive technical discussion is always welcome. > 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. I fear I repeat myself, but I really don't think that a two level load balancing algorithm (first by LU timestamp, then round robin) is a good solution when simple round robin will just do the job. What would you think about a fix following your idea of always putting the last used entry upfront the list, but removing the time stamp code? > Perhaps the suggested fix should be better commented > to point out the > problem and how the change addresses it. Better comments are always a good idea, whatever will be implemented in the end. :-) Nils
