On 06/05/2014 12:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:37:25AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 06/05/2014 01:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:09:35AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
The current implementation of lockless list (llist) has a dra
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:37:25AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 06/05/2014 01:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:09:35AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> The current implementation of lockless list (llist) has a drawback: if we
> >> want to traverse the list in FI
On 06/05/2014 01:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:09:35AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> The current implementation of lockless list (llist) has a drawback: if we
>> want to traverse the list in FIFO order (oldest to newest), we need to
>> reverse the list first (and thi
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:09:35AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> The current implementation of lockless list (llist) has a drawback: if we
> want to traverse the list in FIFO order (oldest to newest), we need to
> reverse the list first (and this can be expensive if the list is large,
> since th
The current implementation of lockless list (llist) has a drawback: if we
want to traverse the list in FIFO order (oldest to newest), we need to
reverse the list first (and this can be expensive if the list is large,
since this is an O(n) operation).
However, for callbacks that are queued using sm
5 matches
Mail list logo
