Cliff Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ..................................... (I still want to implement bucket
> reuse lists, for example, which would be a large step toward eliminating
> these mallocs).
This will be very useful, especially if the semantics of the list
operations will enable them to be implemented as lock-free operations
for certain platforms.
It could be used in the pool code for maintaining the free block list,
as well as for lists of blocks of the appropriate size for bucket
operations.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
- some reasons why Apache 2.0 threaded is slower than... Ian Holsman
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 threaded is sl... Bill Stoddard
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 threaded i... Cliff Woolley
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 thread... Bill Stoddard
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 threaded i... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 threaded is sl... Cliff Woolley
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 threaded i... Jeff Trawick
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 thread... Cliff Woolley
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 th... Rodent of Unusual Size
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2... Bill Stoddard
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2... Greg Stein
- Re: some reasons why Apac... Jeff Trawick
- Re: some reasons why ... Greg Stein
- Re: some reasons why ... Jeff Trawick
- Re: some reasons why ... Greg Stein
- Re: some reasons why ... David Reid
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 th... Ben Laurie
