[lttng-dev] Do updaters of a cds_lfht need to be synchronized?

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

----- On Oct 28, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Charles Jacobsen <charles.jacobsen at primarydata.com> 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
> lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers 
EfficiOS Inc. 
http://www.efficios.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20161031/8b0a2774/attachment.html>