Hi, Junchang,
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 22:35:15 +0800, Junchang Wang wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Junchang Wang <junchangwang@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I'm reading the latest version of the perfbook and this patch contains fixes to
> some typos in Section Data Structures. Hope it helps.
>
> Thanks,
> --Junchang
>
> --
> datastruct/datastruct.tex | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/datastruct/datastruct.tex b/datastruct/datastruct.tex
> index 4b62471..e21952b 100644
> --- a/datastruct/datastruct.tex
> +++ b/datastruct/datastruct.tex
> @@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ Of course, it is quite possible that the differences in lookup performance
> are affected by the differences in update rates.
> One way to check this is to artificially throttle the update rates of
> per-bucket locking and hazard pointers to match that of RCU.
> -Doing so does not significantly improve the lookup performace of
> +Doing so does not significantly improve the lookup performance of
> per-bucket locking, nor does it close the gap between hazard pointers
> and RCU.
> However, removing the read-side memory barriers from hazard pointers
> @@ -800,8 +800,8 @@ scalability, external consistency, or all of the above.
> \section{Non-Partitionable Data Structures}
> \label{sec:datastruct:Non-Partitionable Data Structures}
> %
> -\epigraph{Undertake somthing difficult, otherwise you will never grow.}
> - {\emph{Ronald E.~Osburn}}
> +\epigraph{Undertake something difficult, otherwise you will never grow.}
> + {\emph{Ronald E.~Osborn}}
>
> \begin{figure}[tb]
> \centering
> @@ -1063,7 +1063,7 @@ Otherwise, a concurrent resize operation has already distributed this
> bucket, so line~\lnref{new_hashtbl} proceeds to the new hash table,
> line~\lnref{get_newbkt} selects the bucket corresponding to the key,
> and line~\lnref{acq_newbkt} acquires the bucket's lock.
> -\Clnref{lsp1b}{lsp1e} store the bucket pointer and
> +\Clnrefrange{lsp1b}{lsp1e} store the bucket pointer and
Thanks for catching this!
As far as I see, there is no other error in the use of \clnrefrange/\crefrange
at the moment.
To prevent similar typos in the future, I'll add a check of this pattern somewhere
in the build script.
Thanks, Akira
PS:
The email address in the From: field does not match the SOB tag.
Is this intentional?
> pointer-set index into their respective fields in the
> \co{ht_lock_state} structure, which again communicates this information to
> \co{hashtab_add()}, \co{hashtab_del()}, and \co{hashtab_unlock_mod()}.
>
