On Saturday 04 August 2001 12:57, Brian Pane wrote:
> Paul J. Reder wrote:
> >Brian Pane wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>Also, the documentation
> >>that Paul posted mentions the option of using per-process or
> >>per-worker locking; that might offer sufficiently small granularity,
> >>depending on what specifically your modules are doing with the
> >>scoreboard.
> >>--Brian
> >
> >Again, this is a possibility, *if* performance requires it. Using
> >finer granularity locking adds complexity to the code. I would
> >discourage moving to this unless the current scheme proves to be
> >a problem.
>
> I'm fundamentally in agreement. My point was not that finer-grained
> locking is inherently necessary, but rather that the ability of your
> design to support finer-grained locking refutes Ryan's theoretical
> concern about locking being a fundamental bottleneck.
Understand, this isn't a theoretical concern for me. I have modules that walk the
scoreboard
on every request. They are looking to determine what each of the other workers is
doing.
Requiring any locking to walk the scoreboard is a non-starter.
Are there other ways to handle what I need to do? Yes. They add greatly to the
complexity of
my code. I have also posted two other problems with the current patch. One is a
simple bug that
Paul is fixing, the other is a fundamental design flaw that also requires I give the
patch a -1.
Ryan
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
