harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rana Dasgupta" <rdasg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm] my latest round of patches broke something
Date Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:48:12 GMT
On 9/26/06, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Just to be clear: I suggest we apply new_queued_cond_var.patch
> >attached to HARMONY-1519 - provided that Artem will answer >comments.

  I went through both the patches apr_cond.patch and
new_queued_cond_var.patch on H-1519.
  There is no perfect solution to implementing conditional waits on Windows
due to well documented reasons. The original apr implementation was matching
generations of releases to corresponding waits and the first patch improves
it, by getting the last waiter to reset the manual event( which seems
logical ). As Artem commented on the JIRA, even this has known issues...the
loop is inefficient and there can be signal stealing and permanent waits due
lack of atomicity between apr_thread_mutex_unlock() and
  Artem's patch new_queued_cond_var.patch looks simple and new, using
synchronized wait queues. Just from reading, it seemed like a good solution,
there is no way ( at least for me )to understand that it is perfect without
a lot of testing.
  These changes are  a maintenance hazard. Are we planning to stay
compatible with APR? I don't know if APR is still an active community. If
so, we should not commit more changes, and ask on the APR list first.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message