[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1408033641.4951.116.camel@eris.loria.fr>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 18:27:21 +0200
From: Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@...ia.fr>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: My current understanding of cond var access restrictions
Am Donnerstag, den 14.08.2014, 10:41 -0400 schrieb Rich Felker:
> Thus I'm skeptical of trying an approach like this when it would be
> easier, and likely less costly on the common usage cases, just to
> remove requeue and always use broadcast wakes. I modified your test
> case for the bug to use a process-shared cv (using broadcast wake),
> and as expected, the test runs with no failure.
You shouldn't draw much conclusion from the fact that it works in that
case. This still heavily interacts with the waiters count and thus a
signaling thread that comes after such a broadcast might wake up a
thread that it shouldn't.
(But I didn't do a full analysis of that situation.)
Jens
--
:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: AlGorille ::: ICube/ICPS :::
:: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536 ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183 ::
:: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::
:: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
