From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:54:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:54:23 -0400 Received: from mailgw.prontomail.com ([216.163.180.10]:31680 "EHLO c0mailgw04.prontomail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:54:19 -0400 Message-ID: <3AD77540.42BF138E@mvista.com> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 14:53:04 -0700 From: george anzinger Organization: Monta Vista Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20b i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Horst von Brand CC: Ben Greear , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, high-res-timers-discourse@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: No 100 HZ timer! In-Reply-To: <200104131205.f3DC5KV11393@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Horst von Brand wrote: > > Ben Greear said: > > [...] > > > Wouldn't a heap be a good data structure for a list of timers? Insertion > > is log(n) and finding the one with the least time is O(1), ie pop off the > > front.... It can be implemented in an array which should help cache > > coherency and all those other things they talked about in school :) > > Insertion and deleting the first are both O(log N). Plus the array is fixed > size (bad idea) and the jumping around in the array thrashes the caches. > -- And your solution is? George