Subj : Re: Question for mr lockfree :) To : comp.programming.threads From : Joe Seigh Date : Tue May 17 2005 09:28 pm On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:14:05 -0400, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > SenderX wrote: >> >> However, you have to do a lot of bookkeeping IMHO, per-thread lists, bin >> sorting them, iterating them and comparing against per-thread >> hazard-pointers, tracking of the participating threads, and ( i think )the >> amount of hazards per-thread is static... > For the time being, it is. I have yet to find a "proper" way to reliably > grow the number of per-thread hazard pointers without stopping the world.. It could be done but I don't think it should be done if it adds an extra level of indirection. I don't think you need more than one hazard pointer per thread unless you do some kind of lock-free recursive traversal of a tree or something. You can always handle it as an error equivalent to stack overflow. -- Joe Seigh When you get lemons, you make lemonade. When you get hardware, you make software. .