Hello,
8bf58c0d9bd33686 badly conflicts with this patch, so I'll rebase
this and added a patch to refactor the function that Anotonin
pointed. This would be merged into 0002 patch.
At Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:24:52 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in
<20170718.162452.221576658.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> I'll put an upper limit to the number of waiters processed at
> once. Then add a comment like that.
>
> > Actually the reason I thought of simplification was that I noticed small
> > inefficiency in the way you do the compaction. In particular, I think it's not
> > always necessary to swap the tail and head entries. Would something like this
> > make sense?
>
> I'm not sure, but I suppose that it is rare that all of the first
> many elements in the array are not COMPLETE. In most cases the
> first element gets a response first.
...
> Yeah, but maybe the "head" is still confusing even if reversed
> because it is still not a head of something. It might be less
> confusing by rewriting it in more verbose-but-straightforwad way.
>
>
> | int npending = 0;
> |
> | /* Skip over not-completed items at the beginning */
> | while (npending < estate->es_num_pending_async &&
> | estate->es_pending_async[npending] != ASYNCREQ_COMPLETE)
> | npending++;
> |
> | /* Scan over the rest for not-completed items */
> | for (i = npending + 1 ; i < estate->es_num_pending_async; ++i)
> | {
> | PendingAsyncRequest *tmp;
> | PendingAsyncRequest *curr = estate->es_pending_async[i];
> |
> | if (curr->state == ASYNCREQ_COMPLETE)
> | continue;
> |
> | /* Move the not-completed item to the tail of the first chunk */
> | tmp = estate->es_pending_async[i];
> | estate->es_pending_async[nepending] = tmp;
> | estate->es_pending_async[i] = tmp;
> | ++npending;
> | }
The last patch does something like this (with apparent bugs
fixed)
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center