On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:28:24AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> 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!
And from me as well! Queued and pushed, thank you!
> 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.
Looking forward to it!
> PS:
>
> The email address in the From: field does not match the SOB tag.
> Is this intentional?
I made the Signed-off-by: field match the From: field. This can be
changed if need be.
Thanx, Paul
> > 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()}.
> >
