Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #35327

Re: Jumping to false Conclusions [Robert Klemme] (Was: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?)

From	j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Jumping to false Conclusions [Robert Klemme] (Was: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?)
Date	2016-08-14 13:08 +0200
Organization	albasani.net
Message-ID	<nopjg3$npk$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <nompol$fqt$1@news.albasani.net> <e19h9vF37j0U1@mid.individual.net> <nopee6$efa$1@news.albasani.net> <nopes8$f45$1@news.albasani.net> <nopfqi$h4a$1@news.albasani.net>

Show all headers | View raw

Oops, I have to retract my allegations,
and I have to work on my memo style presentation.

I guess <A_w_T A_r_T> can pass as a memo style presentation
for first acquiring a write lock and then acquiring a read
lock. It also seems that java.util.concurrent can do it.

But I also guess that <A_r_T A_w_T> cannot pass as a memo
style presentation for an upgrade. Mostlikely the behaviour
is rather <A_r_T> <A_w_T>.

Hm.

j4n bur53 schrieb:
> j4n bur53 schrieb:
>> Ordinary Java cannot do it, class loading is usually
>> serialized by a single lock. But there are also
>> parallel class loader options around.
>
> They call this "heavy-handed" or "not sufficiently granular"
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/lang/cl-mt.html
>
> You really need to think from another prespective about
> the escalable locks. Deadlock-freeness is least of concern
> at the moment.
>
> The escalation problem is a problem inside the same thread.
> So it doesn't have to do with deadlock per se. Its more a
> problem of extending the transition matrix of the lock.
>
> Of course this transition matrix takes also into account the
> votes of other threads. But since we extend the transition
> matrix, we allow more transitions.
>
> But these more transitions do not considerably increase or
> decrease some likelihood of deadlock-freeness. They only
> allow to enlarge the atomic regions.
>
> <>: Atomic
>
> With RW, we would be forced to do:
> <A_r_T> <A_w_T>
> - or -
> <A_w_T> <A_r_T>
>
> With ERW, we can do:
> <A_r_T A_w_T>
> - or -
> <A_w_T A_r_T>
>
> So Robert Klemme(*) jumped to the following conclusions:
>
>     larger atomics <=> lower deadlock-freeness
>
> But he didn't give some concrete arguments or examples
> for that. I don't believe in the above law. It could
> be even vice versa.
>
> Bye
>
> (*)
>
> Robert Klemme wrote (13.08.16, 23:21):
>  > > Deadlock-freeness is a property of the application program
>  > > that uses parallel components and some synchronization
>  > > primitives.
>  > Right.  But there are lock types with higher and lower likelihood of
>  > deadlocks.  As far as I can see your lock which allows escalation
>  > from shared read to exclusive write is one of the kind with higher
>  > likelihood.
>

Thread

Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-07 18:55 +0200
  Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2016-08-08 01:10 +0000
    Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-08 09:38 +0200
      Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-08 09:47 +0200
      Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2016-08-10 14:39 +0000
        Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-10 18:05 +0200
          Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 17:44 -0700
            Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-11 12:43 +0200
              Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-08-12 22:18 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2016-08-13 05:56 +0000
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:08 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-13 11:37 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-13 11:39 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-13 12:27 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-08-13 23:21 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 11:42 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 11:50 +0200
                Jumping to false Conclusions [Robert Klemme] (Was: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 12:06 +0200
                Re: Jumping to false Conclusions [Robert Klemme] (Was: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 13:08 +0200
                Re: Jumping to false Conclusions [Robert Klemme] (Was: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:45 +0200
                Re: Jumping to false Conclusions [Robert Klemme] (Was: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 14:01 +0200
                Re: Jumping to false Conclusions [Robert Klemme] (Was: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 14:01 +0200
                Re: Jumping to false Conclusions [Robert Klemme] (Was: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 14:07 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:13 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 12:25 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 12:36 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:41 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 12:45 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 12:49 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 13:45 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 13:48 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:29 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 14:56 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 14:59 +0200
                Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API? Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 18:10 +0200
  Simpler requirements on the horizon! (Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-14 13:18 +0200
  I dont see a deadlock (Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-31 01:23 +0200
    Re: I dont see a deadlock (Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) bursejan@gmail.com - 2016-08-30 16:35 -0700
      Re: I dont see a deadlock (Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) bursejan@gmail.com - 2016-08-30 16:45 -0700
        Re: I dont see a deadlock (Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2016-08-31 09:23 +0000
          Re: I dont see a deadlock (Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2016-08-31 10:13 +0000
          Re: I dont see a deadlock (Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-31 14:00 +0200
        Re: I dont see a deadlock (Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-08-31 07:49 -0400
          Re: I dont see a deadlock (Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-08-31 14:13 +0200
            Re: I dont see a deadlock (Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-08-31 12:55 -0400
    Re: I dont see a deadlock (Re: Library for Escalable Locks, Slimmest API?) Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-08-31 07:54 -0400

csiph-web