Re: [wtp-dev] Request PMC approval for 130994 - please review deadlock i

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I would appreciate further review of
this fix. 

As you state, its follows a pattern
of 

        acquire
SchedulingRule
         
  synchronized (some object) 
         
      {meaty stuff}
        release
ScheduleingRule

I think this is still deadlock prone,
unless *all* clients use exact same pattern. 

If, for example, somewhere else, only
synchronized is used, AND ends up calling back to this code, then I think
deadlock will occur. 
Is it known (or, at least documented)
that this is the pattern all clients should use? 
My guess is not, and that's why you
are using synchronized block to begin with. 
Or, perhaps, synchronized part is not
needed at all? And could do all with scheduleing rules? 

I must confess, this was from my quick
reivew of the patch ... so I may be mis-reading it, or 
these issues may be well (better!) understood,
but just thought I'd request the education
for myself. 

Thanks,

Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

03/30/2006 12:00 PM

Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	[wtp-dev] Request PMC approval for 130994

Have fix that first acquires lock based on scheduling rules, then uses
the object monitor locks. finally it releases the lock through the  JobManager.
This will avoid deadlocks with other processes that also use scheduling
rules. 

Tested locally 

Thanks - Chuck 

Rational J2EE Tooling Team Lead
IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
Email:  cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444)_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev