On 02-Jun-2003 Paul Richards wrote: > On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 21:04, Paul Richards wrote: > >> >> The tradeoff with using an index into an array is that there'd be a >> heavy penalty for growing the array if an extra method didn't fit, but >> that would be exceptionally rare and with our present usage we'd never >> have that happen. > > I'm not sure this is actually a problem after all since the Interface > doesn't change and therefore we know a-priori how many methods there can > be so we can pre-allocate an array. I wonder why Doug didn't do this, > perhaps he thought that there'd be very large interfaces and 255 was a > reasonable compromise for a cache. However, in practice we'd save a lot > of space per kobj by preallocating the actual number of entries we > needed for the Interface instead and then we could do away with the _ce > problem. This would actually speed up the dispatch a lot too since we > wouldn't have to traverse a list looking for a matching method entry and > could call the function directly from the method table. > > Doug, am I missing something? Well, it's dfr_at_ rather than doug_at_ :) (dfr_at_ cc'd) -- John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/Received on Tue Jun 03 2003 - 12:33:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:10 UTC