[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | malc <malc@p...> |
| Subject: | Usage of condition variables |
Hello, Recently in the process of discussing one problem i was having subject temporarily switched to the condition variables: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.programmer/tree/browse_frm/thread/5394d00781547266/17c8a349edae9d3c?rnum=1_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.unix.programmer%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5394d00781547266%2F17c8a349edae9d3c%3Ftvc%3D1%26q%3Dmalc%26#doc_b586db199a5fd81a Also according to: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pthread_cond_signal.html <quote> The pthread_cond_broadcast() or pthread_cond_signal() functions may be called by a thread whether or not it currently owns the mutex that threads calling pthread_cond_wait() or pthread_cond_timedwait() have associated with the condition variable during their waits; however, if predictable scheduling behavior is required, then that mutex shall be locked by the thread calling pthread_cond_broadcast() or pthread_cond_signal(). </quote> However it seems like members of OCaml team strongly prefer unlock then signal pattern. Given that Xavier Leroy is also the author of LinuxThreads there might be some good arguments to have it that way, or maybe it's because of vmthreads, perhaps someone could give the rationale? So far only this: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.programmer/msg/02751100d1b953e3 was in favour of unlock then signal. -- mailto:malc@pulsesoft.com