[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [4diac-dev] [FORTE] Remove recursive mutex requirement on win32 and possix
|
Hi,
I did now a first prototype of the non recursive mutexes using them for a generic join infrastructure and also moved some code from the architecture specific implementations to thread base. I tested it for posix and win32. But as it is a bigger change with quite some implications I pushed it into gerrit asking for your review before merging it into the repo and adapting the other architectures. You can find the push here [1].
Looking forward to your comments,
Alois
[1] https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/111423/
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 08. November 2017 um 13:37 Uhr
> Von: "Martin Melik-Merkumians" <Melik-Merkumians@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> An: "4diac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <4diac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Betreff: Re: [4diac-dev] [FORTE] Remove recursive mutex requirement on win32 and possix
>
> Hi,
>
> I support the solution, as it fixes the mentioned bug. The bug is quite annoying, as it is non-deterministic and took me some time to understand, that my code changes did not cause the strange FORTE start/stop or FORTE start/seg fault scenarios.
>
> As far as I am concerned, I would not be aware of, that I would need recursive mutexes.
>
> Best regards,
> Martin
>
> > Betreff: [4diac-dev] [FORTE] Remove recursive mutex requirement on
> > win32 and possix
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm currently reviewing the thread implementations because of the issues reported in Bug [1]. I found that by moving the joing code into base class the FORTE behavior on all platforms and simplifying porting FORTE to new platforms. However in order to get a thread save behavior of the join i would need to remove the recursive mutex property. Recursive mutex means that one thread can acquire the same mutex more then once. I did a code review on all mutex uses in FORTE and in the public code we currently don't need recursive mutexes. But to be sure I wanted to check here if there is anybody needing recursive mutexes.
> >
> > Maybe one further comment supporting the removal of recursive mutexes is that non-recursive mutexes need less memory and are faster then recursive mutexes.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Alois
> >
> > [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=525774
> > _______________________________________________
> > 4diac-dev mailing list
> > 4diac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> > unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/4diac-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 4diac-dev mailing list
> 4diac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/4diac-dev
>
