[armedbear-devel] Pure threads and hashtables test

[Alan Ruttenberg]

Agreed. While the gethash and puthash should independently work, the combination of the two isn't thread safe. For example two processes could get the value in the ht before either has a chance to write back the increment. 




However, since the combination of the two is a common pattern, it would certainly be useful to have an easy to use function that guaranteed the  whole update was synchronized. 




In any case, that is why I chose to use the keys. Each key for a result is unique so there shouldn't be any contention over key/value pair. 




I'm going to so some more tests to see  whether the problem is generic or related to the regex call. 




I think all the variables I use in the processing lambda are thread local but I will have another look there. Um, just as a sanity check, allocation of space for the closures are thread safe, right?




-Alan


-Alan

http://alan.ruttenbergs.com/

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Mark Evenson <evenson at panix.com> wrote:

> Eh.  Upon reflection, not entirely sure that the increments are happening CV correctly. I will try to move the test to counting the total entries in the hash table, rather than only accessing one key. This should be closer to Alan's original problem.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/armedbear-devel/attachments/20130927/e2e32b06/attachment.html>