Boost logo

Boost :

From: Glen Knowles (gknowles_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-09 22:00:12

> From: Howard Hinnant [mailto:hinnant_at_[hidden]]
> On Jul 9, 2004, at 7:10 PM, Glen Knowles wrote:
> >> Without try locks, lock_both can't be made to work without risking
> >> deadlock.
> >
> > Lock_both can be made to work with try locks? Either you
> have a way to
> > deterministicly set the order you lock the mutexes or you have
> > problems. You can avoid deadlocking with try lock, but you
> will fail
> > to get the pair of locks in cases were you would have gotten it by
> > waiting. I suppose you could just keep try-locking both
> ways until you
> > get it, but that's not good for performance. :)
> Well actually keep try-locking both ways is what I've been
> doing. I'd agree with you that in a heavily contested
> context, performance could theoretically suffer arbitrarily badly.
> > One solution to this problem would be mutex::operator<
> <nod> I just implemented lock_both::lock two ways: Once
> just keep try-locking both ways, and once locking in the
> order of the addresses of the locks (with only two locks in
> the test, this was a safe operator<). My test looks like:

The problem case for spinning is when one thread gets the locks and the
holds them for a non-trivial length of time. During that time the other,
spinning thread, just wastes cpu as fast as it can. This just gets magnified
as more threads are involved.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at