Thanks Nicky!
will apply patches asap - we're usually pretty good at avoiding
deadlocks :(
cheers,
Rob
http://rajdavies.blogspot.com/
On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:40 PM, Nicky Sandhu wrote:
Hi folks,
I got hit by another deadlock condition. Thats two different ones
on two
consecutive days :(
In ActiveMQ I see a lot of blocks of code using synchronized
access, nothing
wrong with that but this increases the potential for deadlocks as
evidenced
by the last two problems I have hit within the span of a couple of
days
(https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-1467,
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-1468)
This may be just my luck but I think it points to concurrency 101
lessons
(http://undergraduate.csse.uwa.edu.au/units/CITS3213/lectures2/
lect4.pdf)
some which are a.) Lock on the appropriate object 2.) don't hold
locks for
longer than absolutely necessary 3.) avoid nested locks like the
plague. 4.)
Establish locking order for nested locks etc.
Thoughts?
Nicky
BTW. JConsole has a cool detect deadlock feature in jdk6 which
makes this
exercise quick (once you stumble across the deadlock that is >:)) +
this
article (http://www.javaspecialists.eu/archive/Issue130.html) has
code that
you can run periodically to dump them when they happen... something
to be
included in perhaps a debug version to help root all these out ?
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Deadlocks-again-
%3A%28-tf4643498s2354.html#a13263508
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
