Sorry about the delay.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 09:28:55AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 07/14/2014 12:05 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > Simply unfold the code of start_worker() into create_worker() and
> > remove the original start_worker() and create_and_start_worker().
> >
> > The only
Sorry about the delay.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 09:28:55AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
On 07/14/2014 12:05 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
Simply unfold the code of start_worker() into create_worker() and
remove the original start_worker() and create_and_start_worker().
The only trade-off is
On 07/14/2014 12:05 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Simply unfold the code of start_worker() into create_worker() and
> remove the original start_worker() and create_and_start_worker().
>
> The only trade-off is the introduced overhead that the pool->lock
> is released and re-grabbed after the newly
On 07/14/2014 12:05 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
Simply unfold the code of start_worker() into create_worker() and
remove the original start_worker() and create_and_start_worker().
The only trade-off is the introduced overhead that the pool-lock
is released and re-grabbed after the newly worker
Simply unfold the code of start_worker() into create_worker() and
remove the original start_worker() and create_and_start_worker().
The only trade-off is the introduced overhead that the pool->lock
is released and re-grabbed after the newly worker is started.
The overhead is acceptable since the
Simply unfold the code of start_worker() into create_worker() and
remove the original start_worker() and create_and_start_worker().
The only trade-off is the introduced overhead that the pool-lock
is released and re-grabbed after the newly worker is started.
The overhead is acceptable since the
6 matches
Mail list logo