Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share

[Rob Mayoff]

+---------- On Sep 10, Sean Owen said:
> This is true, but is atomicity really required? If you don't mind the memory
> being taken up for a few extra cycles, it seems to me that if you point the
> API at the new version of the hash table, you can poll the reference count
> for the old version once a second until it is zero, and then safely free the
> memory. What's a little busywaiting among friends?

What if two readers try to decrement the reference count
simultaneously?  One of the decrements will be missed and you'll never
stop polling.