From: Bill Wade (bill.wade_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-07 10:43:37
> From: William Kempf [mailto:sirwillard_at_[hidden]]
> Uhmmm... I'd have to see a concrete example. Other than a slight
> performance hit I can think of no reason why the locks must overlap
> this way.
Consider single-linked list traversal. To move from node A (which is
currently locked) to *A.next you need to get a lock to *A.next and then
release your A lock. Compared to locking the entire list, this allows
essentially one processor per node rather than one processor per list.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk