Salut,
charlie hunt wrote:
> Salut,
>
> I can add that information to the files.
>
> I don't like the duplicate code either. Hence my suggestion of making
> CircularQueue & LinkedList plug-able.
Ah sorry missed that.
>
> Did you ever do any comparisons of a "LinkedListPipeline extends
> LinkedList" versus a "LinkedListPipeline" that uses a LinkedList as a
> composite of LinkedListPipeline? If you happen to code this and try
> it, could you put the LinkedList as the first non-static reference in
> the list of fields for the LinkedListPipeline?
Yes I did a while ago, based on your recommendation :-) That was in 2005
if I recall :-)
>
> If the "extends LinkedList" performs better, I think I know the reason why.
Yes it was performing a little better!
A+
-- Jeanfrancois
>
> A+
>
> charlie ...
>
> Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote:
>> Salut,
>>
>> comment inline.
>>
>> charlie hunt wrote:
>>> Salut,
>>>
>>> I'm attaching the CircularQueuePipeline. It's actually two files.
>>> One is a CircularQueue data structure which supports the APIs needed
>>> by the CircularQueuePipeline.
>>>
>>> I think we talked about this before at one time?
>>>
>>> I wonder if we should consider making CircularQueue or LinkedList
>>> plug-able into the Pipeline?
>>>
>>> Since you're the Pipeline expert, would you like to do a quick review
>>> of this implementation?
>>>
>>> A+
>>>
>>> charlie ...
>>>
>>> PS: I did some performance testing with this Pipeline versus the
>>> LinkedListPipeline. The CircularQueuePipeline will perform better
>>> under circumstances where there gets to be large number of entries in
>>> the queue waiting to be executed. But, that's not a desire-able
>>> situation. It also does slightly better on systems with small CPU
>>> caches relative to the number of virtual processors (i.e. SPARC T1/T2
>>> processors). The underlying circular queue being an array is more
>>> CPU cache friendly being an array than a set of linked list nodes
>>> which could be scattered randomly throughout memory. But, on
>>> traditional x86 architectures, it appears LinkedListPipeline does
>>> slightly better than CircularQueuePipeline, especially if the number
>>> of entries in the LinkedList is relatively small.
>>
>> Can you add that information inside the class description? This is
>> quite interesting!
>>
>> One comment CircularQueuePipeline: your class share a lot of code
>> (same code) with LinkedListPipeline. Would be nice if you can refactor
>> both class and make then sharing the code. Because now both have the
>> exact same code :-)
>>
>>>
>>> charlie ...
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>