Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:09:53 -0600 (CST) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: [thiscpuops upgrade 10/10] Lockless (and preemptless) fastpaths for slub |
| |
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Ah! I knew I was missing something: the second cmpxchg will fail because it > expects "tid", but the value is now the "next_tid". So effectively, many > instances of the same transaction can run concurrently, but only one will > succeed.
Right.
> Sorry for the noise.
No its good to hear that you were not able to find a hole on first glance.
| |