Thanks Georg for clearing that up.
Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Georg
> Rehfeld
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 12:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] new wait(1000) not good
>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> > I'm also worried about this same scenario with the new locking stuff in
> the
> > mainline. With notifyAll instead of just notify is there a chance to
> starve
> > threads? With notify aren't you guarateed FIFO for lock contention, but
> you
> > wouldn't be guaranteed with a notifyAll?
>
> notify does NOT guarantee FIFO awakening of threads: the docs
> explicitely state:
>
> | The choice is arbitrary and occurs at the discretion of the
> | implementation.
>
> i.e. a LIFO or whatever implementation might lead to starvation.
>
> notifyAll seems to be MUCH better as of the docs:
>
> | The awakened threads will compete in the usual manner with
> | any other threads that might be actively competing to
> | synchronize on this object; for example, the awakened threads
> | enjoy no reliable privilege or disadvantage in being the next
> | thread to lock this object.
>
> So every thread, if it was waiting before or just coming in
> fresh, has the same chance to get the lock and proceed, avoiding
> starvation.
>
> Bye
> Georg
> ___ ___
> | + | |__ Georg Rehfeld Woltmanstr. 12 20097 Hamburg
> |_|_\ |___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 (40) 23 53 27 10
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
