[concurrency-interest] Backport limitations

David Holmes dcholmes at optusnet.com.au
Tue May 2 23:14:23 EDT 2006

> Dawid Kurzyniec writes:
> So you're saying it's a strict FIFO? (Except for tryAcquire(n) which can
> still succeed even though acquire(n) would block?)


> Hmmm... wouldn't loop be equivalent to a greedy implementation though,
> and prone to deadlocks? (That is, unless the loop was smart enough to be
> able to back off)

Yes a loop would be equivalent to greedy. But for non-fair you have a choice
 - greedy and risk deadlock; or
 - non-greedy and risk starvation

I think I'm mis-remembering some things. :)


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list