Stefan Beller writes:
> I choose "as much live output" as an approximation of "least amount buffered
> over time, i.e. if you were to integrate the buffer size over time
> that should be
> minimized. (c.f. users waiting for output: http://imgur.com/gallery/lhjhbB9)
> I am not
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:29 AM, William Duclot
wrote:
>> When running in parallel we already may be out of order
>> (relative to serial processing). See the second example in the
>> commit message to produce a different order.
>
> Right, I could (should)
> When running in parallel we already may be out of order
> (relative to serial processing). See the second example in the
> commit message to produce a different order.
Right, I could (should) have understood that by myself.
> Consider we scheduled tasks to be run in 3 parallel processes:
>
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:11 AM, William Duclot
wrote:
> Hi,
> I stumbled upon this piece of code (run-command.c:pp_collect_finish()),
> picking the owner
> of the output amongst parallel processes (introduced by Stephan Beller in
> commit
Hi,
I stumbled upon this piece of code (run-command.c:pp_collect_finish()), picking
the owner of the output amongst parallel processes (introduced by Stephan
Beller in commit c553c72eed64b5f7316ce227f6d5d783eae6f2ed)
/*
* Pick next process to output live.
* NEEDSWORK:
* For now we pick it
5 matches
Mail list logo