![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-04 11:55 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||