Re: scalable event scheduling

Alex Rousskov <rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com> writes:
> On 01/28/2013 03:29 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> so easy that even using the STL implementation wouldn't be worth the
>> effort
>
> Can you clarify why we should not just use one of the STL queues
> instead?

I agree with your opinion that "the STL doesn't contain an 'obviously
good' choice for a priority queue implementation in the given
context".

[...]

>> the event scheduler will store a value at the
>> pointed-to location which can be passed to eventDelete to cancel a pending
>> event 'safely' in logarithmic time, meaning, even if the event was
>> possibly already put onto the async queue.
>
> I cannot find the patch code which would make canceling an async queued
> event work. I see that eventDelete deletes ev_tag, but I do not
> understand how that will cancel the event if it is already in the async
> queue. Did I misunderstood what you meant by "cancel a pending event
> already put onto the async queue"?

[...]

The purpose of the eventDelete routine is not to cancel a call the
event scheduler already put onto the async call queue but to prevent
such a call from being put onto this queue if this is still
possible. And I didn't intend change that.
Received on Wed Jan 30 2013 - 16:30:52 MST