> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 04:37:21PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > > When we lookup from shared array only, we need to take a shared lock > > every lookup. Acquiring that lock is what I am trying to avoid. You > > are saying it's not worth optimizing that part, correct? > > Why do we need a shared lock here? IIUC there's no chance that existing > entries will change. We'll only ever add new ones to the end.
hmm, can we really avoid a shared lock when reading from shared memory? considering access for both reads and writes can be concurrent to shared memory. We are also taking an exclusive lock when writing a new tranche. -- Sami
