|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> So the original claim was not about numbering locks (whatever that might
> mean), but numbering shared resources so that one process can only reserve
> more than one resource at a time in the order dictated by those numbers?
Right. I think probably the term "lock" there meant an individual mutex, or
whatever structure you're using to keep track of who has which resource.
I.e., "lock" meant a resource, not a reservation.
> I suppose that would work, at least assuming that a process never releasing
> a resource is not included in the definition of "deadlock".
As long as the process holding the lock on the resource is not prevented
from making progress, it's technically not a deadlock. That's why there are
usually "fairness" criteria in such systems as well, where "fairness" means
that no process that's ready to run gets delayed indefinitely.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |