+---------- On Sep 10, Sean Owen said: > This is true, but is atomicity really required? If you don't mind the memory > being taken up for a few extra cycles, it seems to me that if you point the > API at the new version of the hash table, you can poll the reference count > for the old version once a second until it is zero, and then safely free the > memory. What's a little busywaiting among friends? What if two readers try to decrement the reference count simultaneously? One of the decrements will be missed and you'll never stop polling.
- [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Sean Owen
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Tom Jackson
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Mike Hoegeman
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Rob Mayoff
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Jerry Asher
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Rob Mayoff
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Jerry Asher
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Rob Mayoff
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Sean Owen
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Sean Owen
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Rob Mayoff
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Sean Owen
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share carl garland