Sujet : Re: MSI interrupts
De : chris.m.thomasson.1 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Chris M. Thomasson)
Groupes : comp.archDate : 25. Mar 2025, 21:32:36
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vrv3t5$3ekk$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/25/2025 4:14 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <vrt2sb$27c13$2@dont-email.me>,
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 1:14 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <vrsaro$1faj3$9@dont-email.me>,
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 11:49 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
[snip]
I'm sure one could do a lockless pop using a cmp exchange, but I
wanted to a scenario where one would want to hold onto both
locks throughout the critical section for some reason.
I just don't see how this works in the proposed scenario.
>
You want to hold lock A while lock B us being used? That can be tricky.
>
Really? This happens all the time. Of course it can be tricky,
as concurrent programming always is, but it's incredibly normal.
>
Locking order comes into play here. Uggg... I have seen nightmare code
that was using recursion as well... It deadlocked at a certain depth,
only under the right conditions. The locking order was not properly
respected...
Well, of course it does. But it's still something that people
do all the time.
Indeed. :^) I have had to debug nightmare code from "other" people... What a bitch!
MSI interrupts
Re: MSI interrupts