From: "Aaron Bannert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 6:41 PM
> [snip]
> > > that would be registered in the "parent" thread's pool -- and would only
> > > be invoked by the "parent" thread.
> > >
> > > pools let you do this, you don't need the mutexes for it, you just have to
> > > be explicit about parallelism. (combine that with a root pool per thread
> > > and then we can remove alloc_mutex and free lists and push the real gnarly
> > > problems into the libc malloc where it's probably best solved.)
> >
> > Yes, yes, yes. Can we please split the concept of a heirarchial parent (the
> > 'creator' thread's or process pool, in this case) from the allocation parent
> > (the actual give me memory for my pool from ... here!) Then we have an
> > "OS Knows Best" malloc/free mpm for threading, just as you suggest.
> >
> > This solves your thread-specific requirements and our scoping issues, along
> > with fixing the 'walk the chain of pools for a block' problem, both at once.
>
> It's probably just me, but I'm having trouble parsing this (I think I'm
> getting a cold :( ).
>
> Are you saying you want the thread function to have access to both a
> "scope" pool as well as an "allocator" pool, in case they are different?
I've officially graduated to the rbb (insert a decent name here) club :-)
Thank you, yes, scope pool defines teardowns such as cleanups, while the allocator
pool addresses our performance concerns :)
An obvious test is that 'allocator' is unique (e.g. thread private), a parent
(at any depth) of the 'scope' pool, or the 'scope' pool itself.
