guy keren wrote: > > lets assume this is correct. why does it matter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_starvation > > if your program relies on "fairness" with mutexes - your program > should be re-designed. mutexes were not meant for such 'fairness' - > they were meant for mutual exclusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_exclusion > > do you have a case where this breaks your code? Not my current code, no, but waving away standard requirements merely because you don't see it as important seems.... inappropriate.
let's look at the following example: A database application. There is an operation that requires locking. The number of clients concurrently asking for the operation is too large for the system to afford "idle" time (i.e. - a time where the lock is held by no one). In other words, the server is saturated. There's nothing wrong with that. It just means that mutex is slowing the bandwidth down to the level the server can handle it. Except, if the lock does not protect against starvation, it may be that a single client will NEVER get to complete its operation, while all the others enjoy a slightly better bandwidth at its expense. Please do offer a redesign. > > --guy > Shachar ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
