From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-11 03:57:25
Anthony Williams wrote:
> Yuval Ronen <ronen_yuval_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Roland Schwarz wrote:
>>> Yuval Ronen wrote:
>>>> I will gladly put my code here to be scrutinized by the experts on this forum (after the weekend, as the code is at work, and I'm
>>>> at home now :-) ), but I fear that they will little incentive to do it.
>>> Can't tell. Possibly yes. You will need to try.
>> Ok, if anyone is still interested, here's my implementation of CV for Windows. It's very simple, maybe too simple, and I guess it's
>> far less interesting than the code just posted by Chris Thomasson, but here it is anyway.
>> void wait()
>> m_waitersCount++; // line A
>> m_sem.lock(); // line B
>> m_mutex.lock(); // line C
>> void broadcast()
>> if (m_waitersCount > 0)
>> m_sem.unlock(m_waitersCount); // line D
>> m_waitersCount = 0;
> Unfortunately, it is susceptible to the "stolen wakeup" problem. If
> m_waitersCount is non-zero, the semaphore is incremented on line D. This will
> wake the appropriate number of waiting threads, but not immediately. Threads
> waiting on a semaphore will not be woken until they are next scheduled. Thus,
> a new thread might call wait, increment the waitersCount (line A) and acquire
> the (line B) before all the threads currently waiting have been woken.
I have to admit that I didn't understand the problem. Your description
sounds exactly like what should've happen. At the end, all threads that
were waiting before the call to broadcast() are woken, and the new
thread is waiting. Just as it should. What have I missed?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk