Article <vru3d6$kna$1@reader1.panix.com>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <vru3d6$kna$1@reader1.panix.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano

<vru3d6$kna$1@reader1.panix.com>

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

Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: MSI interrupts
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:17:58 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vru3d6$kna$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <vqto79$335c6$1@dont-email.me> <vrsefn$siu$2@reader1.panix.com> <vrt2sb$27c13$2@dont-email.me> <vrt323$27c13$3@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:17:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="21226"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 2225
Lines: 32

In article <vrt323$27c13$3@dont-email.me>,
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>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...

Yeah, so don't do that.  :-)

I can whack myself in the head with a ballpeen hammer, too.  It
is better if I do not.

	- Dan C.