[concurrency-interest] Deadlock definition question

David Holmes davidcholmes at aapt.net.au
Sun Jun 28 20:05:55 EDT 2009


Hi Peter,

That's often referred to as a self-deadlock, but it isn't a classic
deadlock. People tend to use the term "deadlock" for any situation where a
thread becomes blocked and can never become unblocked, but that's really a
misuse of terminology as the classical deadlock definition is much more
specific.

That's my 2c.

Cheers,
David Holmes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu
> [mailto:concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu]On Behalf Of Peter
> Veentjer
> Sent: Sunday, 28 June 2009 9:27 AM
> To: concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> Subject: [concurrency-interest] Deadlock definition question
>
>
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I have a corner case question about the definition of a deadlock.
>
> In most literature I see that there at least 2 threads need to be
> involved. But what if there is a single thread and a non reentrant
> lock? As thread still can get in a 'deadlock' like sitation when he
> tries to reacquire the lock he already owns. So 1 thread would be
> sufficient as well I would say.
>
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest




More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list