[flan_dev_reg_at] still went straight round its walk-level retries — a failed
scan_open and a failed scan_ok both back to the top. It is the one site where
the argument for leaving it holds water, since the agent gates the verb behind
a stopped program and there is no writer to lose to. It loses to the other
argument: it is the same mistake the slot read was making, three lines under
the note explaining why it is a mistake, and a bare retry left next to that
note teaches that the rule has exceptions it does not have.
And the cost of a refusal was written as a bound when it is a typical. "One
writer, so at most one slot of a walk is odd" is true at any instant and false
across a walk — flan_reg_compact writes every slot under its own counter, so a
repeatedly preempted writer can charge the full patience against several slots
of one walk, 4096 of them in the arithmetic worst case. Both docs now say
typical and give the worst, and record what the larger figure means for
request_lock, which is held across handle_line: a refusing listing delays an
abort by that much. Nothing depended on the old number.
Also written down, because it is the clearest statement of why this was not a
timeout: sixty-four bare re-reads of one word finish in about two microseconds,
so against a writer a millisecond from running the old budget was not short, it
was zero wall-clock.
Joseph Ferano
df2f23609b