On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM, roger peppe wrote:
> 2009/10/27 erik quanstrom :
> > On Tue Oct 27 12:52:52 EDT 2009, rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> the environment variable size limit is set to 16300 bytes which
> >> seems rather small; for instance it can break mkfiles for large
> projects.
>
it isn't protecting against double wakeups, but
instead detects a bug in the code. there's an invariant
that the rendez and the process point to each other
while the process is asleep.
wakeup checks that invariant.
there are three primitives (sleep, wakeup and note)
and at different times in the pa
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:23:10PM -0400, Dave Eckhardt wrote:
>
> University of Utah, "Flux OSkit".
>
> Old OSkit is mostly BSD licensed (if you count the CMU Mach license
> as a BSD license), but at some point somebody sprayed the GPL over
> everything (somewhat reducing the utility of some CMU
On Wed Oct 28 05:42:25 EDT 2009, fors...@terzarima.net wrote:
> it isn't protecting against double wakeups, but
> instead detects a bug in the code. there's an invariant
> that the rendez and the process point to each other
> while the process is asleep.
> wakeup checks that invariant.
> there are
> i agree that it's wise to check invariants. however
> the invarient that there is exactly one wakeup for
> every sleep requires some careful accounting that
> can be equally error prone.
There is no such requirement on callers.
> the case i'm worried about is when two or more kprocs
> think (p
Sorry to kick this rotting horse but I just got back
You've got to feed in 2 hours of source material - 820Gb per stream, how?
I suppose some sort of parallel bus of wires or optic fibres.
we call that "hand waving"
If I have
massively parallel processing I would want massively p
>however the invarient that there is exactly one wakeup for
>every sleep requires some careful accounting that
>can be equally error prone.care not to double-interrupt.
if a process p sleeps on r for condition f, and there are two wakeup(r), only
the first wakeup does anything because by the time
> if a process p sleeps on r for condition f, and there are two wakeup(r), only
> the first wakeup does anything because by the time of the second,
> r doesn't refer to p any more. were you wanting r to retain memory of p so
> the second wakeup would ... presumably still not do anything? (because
>
Hi, I've been awake 40 hours or so now but I'm not hallucinating enough
for my liking just yet but at leas the coffee tastes good here!
IWP9 was fab, a big thank you to everyone involved, attending, watching
and those disappointed not to be there.
Sorry to those we managed to lose on Saturday,
I think my main points were good.
* can parallelize by duplicating subsystems / divide and conquer
* can parallelize by pipelining, even down to the arithmetic level
* latency is limited by Ahmdal's law, potential throughput should not be
* multi-tasking can potentially use close to the fu
> A factory is a parallel system. A car factory can come close to fully
> utilizing thousands of human and robot workers.
as long as we're using wrong analogies, keep in mind that:
- a car factory can also come to a standstill if one or more resources
arrive at a rate slower than they're being c
Sam Watkins wrote:
I think my main points were good.
* can parallelize by duplicating subsystems / divide and conquer
* can parallelize by pipelining, even down to the arithmetic level
* latency is limited by Ahmdal's law, potential throughput should not be
* multi-tasking can potentiall
> - a factory's line can be brought to a standstill if one of its
> elements breaks;
one would hope that software elements do not break so much
> - a factory 's line is at least as slow as its slowest worker
a slow part of the line can be split / duplicated to use multiple workers
> - if all th
Sam Watkins wrote:
- a factory's line can be brought to a standstill if one of its
elements breaks;
one would hope that software elements do not break so much
- a factory 's line is at least as slow as its slowest worker
a slow part of the line can be split / duplicated to use multiple work
On Wed Oct 28 15:09:54 EDT 2009, s...@nipl.net wrote:
> I think my main points were good.
>
> * can parallelize by duplicating subsystems / divide and conquer
> * can parallelize by pipelining, even down to the arithmetic level
> * latency is limited by Ahmdal's law, potential throughput sho
How many parallel systems you have impelemented?
Thanks,
Lucho
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Sam Watkins wrote:
> I think my main points were good.
>
> * can parallelize by duplicating subsystems / divide and conquer
> * can parallelize by pipelining, even down to the arithmetic level
>
Hi, folks.
I'm trying to understand how system interact with network protocols, such as
tcp, udp and other.
i'm look through sources in /sys/src/9/ip/ and saw follow:
- protocol header struct
- protocl init function
and so on.
But i'm grep in plan9.iso and don't find any files, when Tcp4hdr or t
The issue here is that all the things you are saying can be (and have
been) measured. They can be quantified. There are variations in just
how much parallelism is possible depending on the application or even
the type of application.
This type of discussion, absent some sort of quantification, bel
On Wed Oct 28 16:44:36 EDT 2009, ash_...@bk.ru wrote:
> Hi, folks.
> I'm trying to understand how system interact with network protocols, such as
> tcp, udp and other.
> i'm look through sources in /sys/src/9/ip/ and saw follow:
> - protocol header struct
> - protocl init function
> and so on.
>
Thanks!
it becomes more clear for me. But i still don't undrstand some things.
1) as i understand, protocol initialization occurs in ipgetfs, which not used
anywhere, except
ipattach function in same file (devip.c). ipattach, in turn, member of ipdevtab
struct and latter
isn't used anywhere t
> 1) as i understand, protocol initialization occurs in ipgetfs, which not used
> anywhere, except
> ipattach function in same file (devip.c). ipattach, in turn, member of
> ipdevtab struct and latter
> isn't used anywhere too (i haven't found any with grep).
> It seems me strange, but at this
21 matches
Mail list logo
