On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Tue, 18 May 2010 21:43:30 +0200
<snip> > Regardless of the fact that apparently noone reported it in real-world > conditions, we *could* decide that the issue needs fixing. If we > decide so, Nir's approach is the most rigorous one: it tries to fix > the problem thoroughly, rather than graft an additional heuristic. Nir > also has tested his patch on a variety of machines, more so than Dave > and I did with our own patches; he is obviously willing to go forward. > > Right now, there are two problems with Nir's proposal: > > - first, what Nick said: the difficulty of having reliable > high-precision cross-platform time sources, which are necessary for > the BFS algorithm. Ironically, timestamp counters have their own > problems on multi-core machines (they can go out of sync between > CPUs). gettimeofday() and clock_gettime() may be precise enough on > most Unices, though. > > - second, the BFS algorithm is not that well-studied, since AFAIK it > was refused for inclusion in the Linux kernel; someone in the > python-dev community would therefore have to make sense of, and > evaluate, its heuristic. I don't have the expertise to do this, but I'll be playing with the patch over the next few weeks, so if there's a specific piece of data you want, let me know. Geremy Condra _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
