quote:

---

Originally posted by Laika

http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~jw/para04/Abstracts/homa_karimabadi/homa_karimabadi.html

"This approach allows causality errors to occur and provides a recovery mechanism for undoing such effects by rolling the local state of incorrect computations back in time and implementing anti-event messages (messages that cancel the originals when reaching the destination). We are exploring the use of reverse execution techniques to implement rollback in order to substantially reduce the time and memory required using state saving techniques."

http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0010.3/0076.html

the "proactively remove events when the thing that triggerred them goes away" approach means that each anti-event (like a read that empties the buffer) needs to undo it's events, but it also needs to be careful that it doesn't undo combined events, and it needs to be very careful about races (new packet coming in), so the proactive remove actually ends up being less than trivial - and in a performance-critical section.

So even physics and OS programming contradict spenlake's charge that "anti-events" don't exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sparknheart

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laika

http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~jw/para04/Abstracts/homa_karimabadi/homa_karimabadi.html

"This approach allows causality errors to occur and provides a recovery mechanism for undoing such effects by rolling the local state of incorrect computations back in time and implementing anti-event messages (messages that cancel the originals when reaching the destination). We are exploring the use of reverse execution techniques to implement rollback in order to substantially reduce the time and memory required using state saving techniques."

http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0010.3/0076.html

the "proactively remove events when the thing that triggerred them goes away" approach means that each anti-event (like a read that empties the buffer) needs to undo it's events, but it also needs to be careful that it doesn't undo combined events, and it needs to be very careful about races (new packet coming in), so the proactive remove actually ends up being less than trivial - and in a performance-critical section.

So even physics and OS programming contradict spenlake's charge that "anti-events" don't exist.

---

Did you just get hip to anti-event technology; I have been using it for days now... by the way who is this "SpenLake" fellow you refer to?


P.S. Say hi to my French Robotic Five Pointer on a Leash!
No sniffing please!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j
ADORABLE! (No, not you...your dog! )
Jo-Anne

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laika

http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~jw/para04/Abstracts/homa_karimabadi/homa_karimabadi.html

"This approach allows causality errors to occur and provides a recovery mechanism for undoing such effects by rolling the local state of incorrect computations back in time and implementing anti-event messages (messages that cancel the originals when reaching the destination). We are exploring the use of reverse execution techniques to implement rollback in order to substantially reduce the time and memory required using state saving techniques."

http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0010.3/0076.html

the "proactively remove events when the thing that triggerred them goes away" approach means that each anti-event (like a read that empties the buffer) needs to undo it's events, but it also needs to be careful that it doesn't undo combined events, and it needs to be very careful about races (new packet coming in), so the proactive remove actually ends up being less than trivial - and in a performance-critical section.

So even physics and OS programming contradict spenlake's charge that "anti-events" don't exist.

---