On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 12:20:30PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > After more careful reading, I think the assumption that the presence of an > unused bucket means there is no match is not true. Consider the scenario: > > 1. cpu 0 puts lock1 into hb[0] > 2. cpu 1 puts lock2 into hb[1] > 3. cpu 2 clears hb[0] > 4. cpu 3 looks for lock2 and doesn't find it Hmm, yes. The only way I can see that being true is if we assume entries are never taken out again. The wikipedia page could use some clarification here, this is not clear. > At this point, I am thinking using back your previous idea of passing the > queue head information down the queue. Having to scan the entire array for a lookup sure sucks, but the wait loops involved in the other idea can get us in the exact predicament we were trying to get out, because their forward progress depends on other CPUs. Hohumm.. time to think more I think ;-) _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
