![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 11:38:02PM +0200, almesber@lrc.di.epfl.ch wrote: > BTW, this is a little off-topic, I kind of wonder what the right semantics > for deadlock detection are with threads. POSIX 1003.1 1996-07-12 says: > > ... If the system detects that sleeping until a > locked region is unlocked would cause a deadlock, the fcntl() > function shall fail with an [EDEADLK] error." > > Okay, that's a little vague already. Now let's make it more interesting > by adding threads: > > Process Thread Action (executed in this order) > A 1 grab lock X > B 1 grab lock Y > A 2 try to get lock Y > B 2 try to get lock X > > Solaris 2.5.1 thinks this is a deadlock. Linux 2.4.0-test1-ac16 thinks > it isn't. I haven't found any definition of what "putting a process to > sleep" means in POSIX.1. I don't have POSIX in front of me, but I do not think the system must detect deadlock. It is allowed to detect deadlock, and in case it happens to do so EDEADLK is the apprpriate error return. Andries - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||