[concurrency-interest] spurious wakeups semantics
dawidk at mathcs.emory.edu
Wed Nov 2 17:58:12 EST 2005
Doug Lea wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> It's nice (honestly!) to get your usual balance on the perennial
> spurious wakeup issue.
> A couple of notes on it:
> 1. As it turns out, the current implementation
> locks.ReentrantLock.Condition.await() do not spuriously
> wake up. We don't document or promise this though, for the kinds
> of reasons Tim and Josh mentioned.
In the 1.4 backport, spurious wakeups are possible when using unfair
conditions, and in fact I have seen them happening (on MS Windows). They
won't occur when using fair conditions, although - as Doug says - this
is undocumented and not promised to hold in the future.
More information about the Concurrency-interest