Re: [thiscpuops upgrade 10/10] Lockless (and preemptless) fastpathsfor slub

[Christoph Lameter]

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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/