On Fri, 3 November 2006 11:00:58 -0800, dean gaudet wrote:
>
> it seems to me that you only need to be able to represent a range of the
> most recent 65536 crashes... and could have an online process which goes
> about "refreshing" old objects to move them forward to the most recent
> crash state. as long as you know the minimm on-disk crash count you can
> use it as an offset.
You really don't want to go down that path. Doubling the storage size
will double the work necessary to move old objects - hard to imagine a
design that scales worse.
CPU schedulers, btw, take this approach. But they cheat, as they know
the maximum lifetime of their objects (in-flight instructions, rename
registers,...) is bounded to n. Old objects are refreshed for free.
http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2003_09_21_Detailed_Architecture_of_AMDs_64bit_Core.html
Jörn
--
A defeated army first battles and then seeks victory.
-- Sun Tzu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
