The roving Insert point is harder to implement, due to the reversed case:

  [ ][ ][I][ ][ ][H][ ][ ]
         ^^^^^^^^
                 `these items move right

  [ ][ ][H][ ][I][ ][ ][ ]
   ^^^^        ^^^^^^^  ^- this item moves to the top (left most slot)
    |                 `--- these items move right
     ` these items move right

If we think about doing it in hardware, like for each set of a set-associative L1 or L2 cache, it's a hindrance.

I'd just have implemented it as a ring instead of a list and insertion at any point is identical, but my point was exactly that unless your workload specifically fits insert at the "hand" better than the current algorithm, you will need to account for the cost of whatever complexity you add in order to move the insert point.

> If we think about doing it in hardware, like for each set of a set-associative L1 or L2 cache, it's a hindrance.

I don't see why I would think about doing it in hardware.

I totally agree with you, this is not designed for hardware... and as others mentioned RRIP might be better for set-associative caches

With respect to my other reply mentioning a ring instead of a linked list, here's a quick and dirty Ruby port because I couldn't resist that uses a ring with a single dummy head node to simplify the logic:

https://gist.github.com/vidarh/b72615c16673cb38630cab5148190...

You'll note it avoids a bunch of conditionals in add_to_head, remove_node and evict because the wraparound happens automatically and the next/prev pointers are never nil/None

I've not verified it matches the behaviour of yours exactly other than adding a handful of extra access calls and comparing the state.

If you're not familiar with Ruby, the one particularly dirty trick I'm using is that in Ruby you can define methods directly on a specific object, so by defining the method "@head.visited" to always return true, the eviction will just try to set it to false and move straight over it every run, cutting a conditional. You could do a ring without a dummy @head to but it makes the insertion/deletion logic more annoying.

it looks like the ring is implemented using a linked list?

Yes, I wanted to change as little as possible to illustrate why you almost always want to close your lists into a ring when using a linked list ;)

It simplifies a lot of algorithms to be able to guarantee no null pointers. It's a very old trick. You trade a lot of conditionals and a risk of null pointers dereference for a smaller risk of non-termination (failure to check for a null pointer is always bad; failure to check for the end is only a problem if the end of the list is actually your termination condition).

You could do a ring with an array and modulus too, but then you end up copying the whole thing to open up slots to insert to maintain the property of your insertion point being separate from the hand.

That may or may not do worse, but likely to depend on cache size and implementation language.

What you'd almost certainly want in a production implementation anyway would in any case be to do away with constantly allocating nodes and just move them to a free list and reuse to avoid dynamic allocation overhead and garbage collection.

I added a second, singly-linked ring version to the gist I linked above. It doesn't save much, as to be able to unlink the hand you need to keep a pointer to the node adjacent to the hand (I changed "direction" in the naming because it feels weird to have a singly linked list with just "prev" pointers, but that doesn't matter), but it does mean a pointer less for each Node and from experience a lot of people struggle to get the pointer updates right for doubly linked lists, and that is a lot harder to get wrong when singly linked...

Got it. Make sense, I like the reason why you want to make it circular. :)