+ *
+ * Ordering Guarantees:
+ *
+ * To discuss these guarantees, we first define "read" operation as any
+ * of the the basic cds_lfht_lookup, cds_lfht_next_duplicate,
+ * cds_lfht_first, cds_lfht_next operation, as well as
+ * cds_lfht_add_unique (failure).
+ *
+ * We define "read traversal" operation as any of the following
+ * group of operations
+ * - cds_lfht_lookup followed by iteration with cds_lfht_next_duplicate
+ * (and/or cds_lfht_next, although less common).
+ * - cds_lfht_add_unique (failure) followed by iteration with
+ * cds_lfht_next_duplicate (and/or cds_lfht_next, although less
+ * common).
+ * - cds_lfht_first followed iteration with cds_lfht_next (and/or
+ * cds_lfht_next_duplicate, although less common).
+ *
+ * We define "write" operations as any of cds_lfht_add,
+ * cds_lfht_add_unique (success), cds_lfht_add_replace, cds_lfht_del.
+ *
+ * When cds_lfht_add_unique succeeds (returns the node passed as
+ * parameter), it acts as a "write" operation. When cds_lfht_add_unique
+ * fails (returns a node different from the one passed as parameter), it
+ * acts as a "read" operation. A cds_lfht_add_unique failure is a
+ * cds_lfht_lookup "read" operation, therefore, any ordering guarantee
+ * referring to "lookup" imply any of "lookup" or cds_lfht_add_unique
+ * (failure).
+ *
+ * We define "prior" and "later" node as nodes observable by reads and
+ * read traversals respectively before and after a write or sequence of
+ * write operations.
+ *
+ * Hash-table operations are often cascaded, for example, the pointer
+ * returned by a cds_lfht_lookup() might be passed to a cds_lfht_next(),
+ * whose return value might in turn be passed to another hash-table
+ * operation. This entire cascaded series of operations must be enclosed
+ * by a pair of matching rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
+ * operations.
+ *
+ * The following ordering guarantees are offered by this hash table:
+ *
+ * A.1) "read" after "write": if there is ordering between a write and a
+ * later read, then the read is guaranteed to see the write or some
+ * later write.
+ * A.2) "read traversal" after "write": given that there is dependency
+ * ordering between reads in a "read traversal", if there is
+ * ordering between a write and the first read of the traversal,
+ * then the "read traversal" is guaranteed to see the write or
+ * some later write.
+ * B.1) "write" after "read": if there is ordering between a read and a
+ * later write, then the read will never see the write.
+ * B.2) "write" after "read traversal": given that there is dependency
+ * ordering between reads in a "read traversal", if there is
+ * ordering between the last read of the traversal and a later
+ * write, then the "read traversal" will never see the write.
+ * C) "write" while "read traversal": if a write occurs during a "read
+ * traversal", the traversal may, or may not, see the write.
+ * D.1) "write" after "write": if there is ordering between a write and
+ * a later write, then the later write is guaranteed to see the
+ * effects of the first write.
+ * D.2) Concurrent "write" pairs: The system will assign an arbitrary
+ * order to any pair of concurrent conflicting writes.
+ * Non-conflicting writes (for example, to different keys) are
+ * unordered.
+ * E) If a grace period separates a "del" or "replace" operation
+ * and a subsequent operation, then that subsequent operation is
+ * guaranteed not to see the removed item.
+ * F) Uniqueness guarantee: given a hash table that does not contain
+ * duplicate items for a given key, there will only be one item in
+ * the hash table after an arbitrary sequence of add_unique and/or
+ * add_replace operations. Note, however, that a pair of
+ * concurrent read operations might well access two different items
+ * with that key.
+ * G.1) If a pair of lookups for a given key are ordered (e.g. by a
+ * memory barrier), then the second lookup will return the same
+ * node as the previous lookup, or some later node.
+ * G.2) A "read traversal" that starts after the end of a prior "read
+ * traversal" (ordered by memory barriers) is guaranteed to see the
+ * same nodes as the previous traversal, or some later nodes.
+ * G.3) Concurrent "read" pairs: concurrent reads are unordered. For
+ * example, if a pair of reads to the same key run concurrently
+ * with an insertion of that same key, the reads remain unordered
+ * regardless of their return values. In other words, you cannot
+ * rely on the values returned by the reads to deduce ordering.
+ *
+ * Progress guarantees:
+ *
+ * * Reads are wait-free. These operations always move forward in the
+ * hash table linked list, and this list has no loop.
+ * * Writes are lock-free. Any retry loop performed by a write operation
+ * is triggered by progress made within another update operation.
+ *
+ * Bucket node tables:
+ *
+ * hash table hash table the last all bucket node tables
+ * order size bucket node 0 1 2 3 4 5 6(index)
+ * table size
+ * 0 1 1 1
+ * 1 2 1 1 1
+ * 2 4 2 1 1 2
+ * 3 8 4 1 1 2 4
+ * 4 16 8 1 1 2 4 8
+ * 5 32 16 1 1 2 4 8 16
+ * 6 64 32 1 1 2 4 8 16 32
+ *
+ * When growing/shrinking, we only focus on the last bucket node table
+ * which size is (!order ? 1 : (1 << (order -1))).
+ *
+ * Example for growing/shrinking:
+ * grow hash table from order 5 to 6: init the index=6 bucket node table
+ * shrink hash table from order 6 to 5: fini the index=6 bucket node table
+ *
+ * A bit of ascii art explanation:
+ *
+ * Order index is the off-by-one compare to the actual power of 2 because
+ * we use index 0 to deal with the 0 special-case.
+ *
+ * This shows the nodes for a small table ordered by reversed bits:
+ *
+ * bits reverse
+ * 0 000 000
+ * 4 100 001
+ * 2 010 010
+ * 6 110 011
+ * 1 001 100
+ * 5 101 101
+ * 3 011 110
+ * 7 111 111
+ *
+ * This shows the nodes in order of non-reversed bits, linked by
+ * reversed-bit order.
+ *
+ * order bits reverse
+ * 0 0 000 000
+ * 1 | 1 001 100 <-
+ * 2 | | 2 010 010 <- |
+ * | | | 3 011 110 | <- |
+ * 3 -> | | | 4 100 001 | |
+ * -> | | 5 101 101 |
+ * -> | 6 110 011
+ * -> 7 111 111