From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Moreton Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: concurrency suggestions for Gnus Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:55:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4D46E75E.7080503@harpegolden.net> <4D47E65E.1030901@gmail.com> <87pqr3vd6d.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297169759 11733 80.91.229.12 (8 Feb 2011 12:55:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 12:55:59 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 08 13:55:55 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pmn6l-0000qi-DZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:55:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44992 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pmn6k-0006wX-PQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 07:55:50 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38380 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pmn6c-0006tJ-6i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 07:55:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pmn6a-0008TZ-Ll for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 07:55:42 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:51097) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pmn6a-0008TM-Ea for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 07:55:40 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pmn6X-0000gR-Rm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:55:37 +0100 Original-Received: from 193.34.186.16 ([193.34.186.16]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:55:37 +0100 Original-Received: from andrewjmoreton by 193.34.186.16 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:55:37 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 20 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.34.186.16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:93u6CVNYQ3WUCmy8kcwFPI4Eq+o= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:135742 Archived-At: On Tue 08 Feb 2011, Miles Bader wrote: > Ted Zlatanov writes: >> Tom> If we went the "lock anything" route, I would suggest a weak hash table >> Tom> for locks, instead of putting the lock into the object. >> >> A bloom filter would guarantee no false negatives, which as you noted is >> the vast majority of the cases, requires very little space per element > > A bloom filter...?! > > http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/pubs/1995/SSZG95.html > > -miles Not that sort of bloom :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_filter AndyM