----- On Oct 28, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Charles Jacobsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> The documentation for the lock-free hash table does not mention anything about > synchronizing updaters (e.g., with a lock): > [ https://lwn.net/Articles/573431/ | https://lwn.net/Articles/573431/ ] > [ https://lwn.net/Articles/573432/ | https://lwn.net/Articles/573432/ ] > The source for rculfhash (== cds_lfht?) also mentions in the comments that add > and remove are lock free: > [ https://github.com/urcu/userspace-rcu/blob/master/src/rculfhash.c | > https://github.com/urcu/userspace-rcu/blob/master/src/rculfhash.c ] > Is it safe to assume that cds_lfht_add, cds_lfht_add_unique, and so on, *only* > require a surrounding rcu read lock/unlock? > "lock free" is part of the name, so I would assume the answer is "yes". Yes, this assumption is correct. Thanks, Mathieu > Thank you. > Disclaimer > The information contained in this communication from the sender is > confidential. > It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to > receive > it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, > copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this > information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. > _______________________________________________ > lttng-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
_______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
