[concurrency-interest] Proposal WeightedLinkedBoundedQueue

David Holmes dcholmes at optusnet.com.au
Thu Nov 30 20:40:42 EST 2006


But if the bound of 100 is a hard-bound then the enqueue of 101 should be
rejected out of hand.

David Holmes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu
> [mailto:concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu]On Behalf Of Brian
> Goetz
> Sent: Friday, 1 December 2006 10:07 AM
> To: Dawid Kurzyniec; concurrency-interest
> Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] Proposal WeightedLinkedBoundedQueue
>
>
> Although there's a really unfortunate deadlock interaction if you use a
> fair semaphore: you have a queue with a bound of 100 and someone tries
> to enqueue an object of weight 101.  With a fair semaphore, it's game
> over -- no one will ever succeed in enqueuing again.
>
> > Just one more thing - I am not sure if this is going to be a problem in
> > your case, but are you aware of potential starvation scenarios? E.g. if
> > your queue is full most of the time, and if you have a requestor that
> > wants to put a really large object in the queue, it might never get a
> > chance to do so (losing competition with other requestors putting
> > smaller objects, so that there is never enough space available for the
> > big guy). In the semaphore-based approach, you could prevent this by
> > using a fair semaphore. If you're doing it by hand, you might want to be
> > careful about this.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at altair.cs.oswego.edu
> http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest



More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list