Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vrt2sb$27c13$2@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: MSI interrupts
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 19:02:51 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <vrt2sb$27c13$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vqto79$335c6$1@dont-email.me> <pzdEP.126362$f5K3.26821@fx36.iad>
 <vrs9g9$pnb$2@reader1.panix.com> <vrsaro$1faj3$9@dont-email.me>
 <vrsefn$siu$2@reader1.panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 03:02:52 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e2174216670af0d17933d91728d06f2";
	logging-data="2338851"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19QvcANIAfrfOA2gzhwVld8hx4LkMIl41E="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:czlAUvx42mJN901efhtvjOFSw24=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vrsefn$siu$2@reader1.panix.com>
Bytes: 2327

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, 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.
>