If two threads hold an upgrade lock, and then both of them try to upgrade:
-The first thread cannot upgrade to a unique lock until the second thread releases its upgrade lock.
-The second thread cannot upgrade to a unique lock until the first thread releases its upgrade lock.
Hence, deadlock.

There are two ways to do read/write locks with upgradeability. The more common method used by most other libraries is to make the upgrade a non-blocking tryUpgrade() method or similar. The approach used by boost::threads is, IMO, smarter, but more confusing at first.

Here is the key: An upgrade lock is *not* a special type of read lock that can be upgraded. Don't think of it that way. Instead, think of it as a special type of write lock that can allow simultaneous read locks.

To use boost::thread terminology, multiple upgrade_locks cannot be simultaneously taken on the same mutex; however, while a single upgrade_lock is taken, an arbitrary number of shared_locks can also still be taken on the same mutex.

So:
unique_lock: No other locks may be taken at the same time.
upgrade_lock: Other shared_locks may be taken at the same time, but no other upgrade locks.
shared_lock: Other shared_locks may be taken at the same time.

You need to keep this in mind when coding, and keep your upgrade_lock usage restricted to those places where you *really* need it.


On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Elad Moshe <eladm26@gmail.com> wrote:
If both threads tried to upgrade, you would have a deadlock.

But how is it possible? isn't the upgrade operation atomic?
if the 2 threads try to upgrade, one will succeed and the other one will block until the first thread will unlock. 


On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
AMDG

On 03/27/2014 01:21 AM, Elad Moshe wrote:
> Hi,
> this is my first post here so please bare with me :) .
> I recently used upgrade_lock to try access a shared resource from 2
> different threads.
> I noticed that once the first thread acquired its upgrade_lock the second
> thread was blacked
> until the first thread unlock it.
> can someone please explain me the logic behind this behavior?
> isn't an upgrade lock just a shared_lock that can be upgraded to
> unique_lock?
> why not let both threads acquire it just like shared_lock until, and if,
> they decide to upgrade it to unique_lock?
>

If both threads tried to upgrade, you would have a deadlock.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe


_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users


_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users