inlet/bmp: new lockless design#278
Closed
vincentbernat wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
This reverts commit 7196ccf, which was reverting 3199f8f because this change may be buggy and I wanted to do a release. I need to think if there are better ways to achieve the same goal (fast lookup first, low memory usage second) in a different way. The issue with locks is that they are fulfilled in the order they were taken. If we keep the lock design, readers should have priority over writer.
Member
Author
|
For this one, I am waiting for the current rewrite using an outlet component. This will help BMP batching updates. |
Member
Author
|
Also see osrg/gobgp#1414 (comment). |
Member
Author
|
Let's close this one. If still needed, this will be done quite differently! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This reverts commit 7196ccf, which was reverting 3199f8f because this change may be buggy and I wanted to do a release.
I need to think if there are better ways to achieve the same goal (fast lookup first, low memory usage second) in a different way. The issue with locks is that they are fulfilled in the order they were taken. If we keep the lock design, readers should have priority over writer.