[concurrency-interest] thread queueing qn

Bob Lee crazybob at crazybob.org
Mon Jan 21 21:17:26 EST 2008


Phew. I was worried there for a second.

Bob

On Jan 21, 2008 6:11 PM, David Holmes <dcholmes at optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>  No it doesn't mean that. There's no guarantee of FIFO access to a
> synchronized region.
>
> David Holmes
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu [mailto:
> concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu]*On Behalf Of *Bob Lee
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 January 2008 11:55 AM
> *To:* Dhanji R. Prasanna
> *Cc:* concurrency-interest
> *Subject:* Re: [concurrency-interest] thread queueing qn
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 5:38 PM, Dhanji R. Prasanna <dhanji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  Bob wont thread waiting give me FIFO semantics anyway?
> >
>
> Oops. I think you're right. I was thinking of wait()/notify(). Does this
> statement from the JLS (http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/memory.doc.html)
> mean that threads enter the synchronized block in FIFO fashion?
>
> "With respect to a lock, the *lock* and *unlock* actions performed by all
> the threads are performed in some total sequential order. This total order
> must be consistent with the total order on the actions of each thread."
>
> Bob
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080121/1aca5fa2/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list