> Studying the API of URCU it seems that it's mostly intended for > link-based data structures, such a lists. Suppose I have a large > struct that is often accessed by many readers, and some writers that > occasionally update few fields each time. If I understand correctly, > using URCU, the writers would have to make a copy of the struct on > each write, make the changes, and then publish the updated version. > This is wasteful for small updates to a large struct. RCU / URCU is efficient for read-mostly structures. In that case, copying a large struct may not be such a problem since it is infrequent. You also have the option of splitting the structure into smaller independently updated ones.
_______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
