Sorry for the delay; I've been side-tracked exploring
concurrent trie/hash algorithms
But I did want to point out a problem shared with
all purely table-based approaches, including yours.
Assuming power of 2 capacities, you can only hold up to 1 << 29
entries, because max power of 2 array length
Christos Zoulas wrote:
On Jun 23, 3:33pm, a...@redhat.com (Andrew Haley) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Review request for 5049299
| I can debug this.
|
| Please try first syscall(SYS_clone ...) to bypass the libc gubbins.
| That might be all you need. If that doesn't help I'll have a look.
|
| Isn
On Jun 23, 3:33pm, a...@redhat.com (Andrew Haley) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Review request for 5049299
| I can debug this.
|
| Please try first syscall(SYS_clone ...) to bypass the libc gubbins.
| That might be all you need. If that doesn't help I'll have a look.
|
| Isn't there some point at whi
Martin Buchholz wrote:
> clone-exec update:
>
> I submitted the changes for this, but jtreg tests failed on 32-bit Linux
> (I had only tested on 64-bit Linux)
>
> We disabled (but did not roll back) the use of clone to allow the
> TL integration to proceed.
>
> (As I promised elsewhere...)
> I j
