<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Efficient Lock-Free Durable Sets · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1909.02852/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1909.02852/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Efficient Lock-Free Durable Sets — mentioned by scott_s</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21712581</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1909.02852:21712581</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2019 14:41:58 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Lock-free data structures tend to use the compare-and-swap atomic operation as a primitive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compare-and-swap You provide three values to a CAS operation: the memory address you want to change, the value you expect to be there and the new value you want to be there. If the expected value is not what is at that memory address, the CAS fails; presumably, the expected value is not there because another thread&amp;#x27;s CAS succeeded before you. You now need to do try again (and maybe do some more work before doing so). You can see this in Section 3.3, &amp;quot;The insert operation&amp;quot;…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1909.02852/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DC</category></item></channel></rss>
