Sujet : Re: MSI interrupts
De : chris.m.thomasson.1 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Chris M. Thomasson)
Groupes : comp.archDate : 25. Mar 2025, 03:05:54
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vrt323$27c13$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/24/2025 7:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson 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...
A thread would take mtxA, then mtxB, while another would take mtxB, then mtxA. Deadlock city is going to be visited rather soon...
>
Well, there is a locking order. Check out this older work of mine, multex:
>
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c++/c/sV4WC_cBb9Q/m/SkSqpSxGCAAJ
>
Not sure if this is relevant or not.
>
It doesn't appear to be; sorry.
>
- Dan C.
>
MSI interrupts
Re: MSI interrupts