[concurrency-interest] is ConcurrentLinkedQueue is truely wait-free?

Martin Buchholz martinrb at google.com
Tue Jun 25 00:51:37 EDT 2013

Everyone agreed that the use of "wait-free" in the CLQ docs was poor and it
has been changed in jsr166 CVS.  In the fullness of time it should appear
in openjdk.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Pedro Ramalhete <pramalhe at gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin, I believe that some of the methods in the CLQ are technically
> wait-free, but in case I'm wrong, then it's even a stronger reason to
> change the documentation ;)

I continue to believe the most likely to be wait-free methods like peek and
isEmpty are not, in fact.

> Moreover, I agree with you that the difference between a wait-free queue
> and a lock-free queue is mostly academic, but only for queues, not for
> other data structures.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20130624/f9d3ccf1/attachment.html>

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list