Re: [PATCH] libdw: add thread-safety to dwarf_getabbrev()

* Jonathon Anderson: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 09:59, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Mark Wielaard: >> Current glibc versions have a thread-local fast path, which should address some of these concerns. It's still not a bump-pointer allocator, but at least there are no atomics on t

Re: [PATCH] libdw: add thread-safety to dwarf_getabbrev()

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 09:59, Florian Weimer wrote: * Mark Wielaard: Current glibc versions have a thread-local fast path, which should address some of these concerns. It's still not a bump-pointer allocator, but at least there are no atomics on that path. Since which version of gli

Re: [PATCH 3/3] lib + libdw: Add and use a concurrent version of the dynamic-size hash table.

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 17:13, Mark Wielaard wrote: On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 23:11 -0500, Jonathon Anderson wrote: On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 01:50, Mark Wielaard > wrote: > For example I am not sure I can proof that in resize_worker() this > always holds: assert(GET_STAT

Re: [PATCH 3/3] lib + libdw: Add and use a concurrent version of the dynamic-size hash table.

On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 23:11 -0500, Jonathon Anderson wrote: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 01:50, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > For example I am not sure I can proof that in resize_worker() this > > always holds: assert(GET_STATE(resize_state) != NO_RESIZING); > > In general the handling of the resizing_sta

Re: [PATCH] libdw: add thread-safety to dwarf_getabbrev()

* Mark Wielaard: >> Current glibc versions have a thread-local fast path, which should >> address some of these concerns. It's still not a bump-pointer >> allocator, but at least there are no atomics on that path. > > Since which version of glibc is there a thread-local fast path? It was added i