I publish version based on new LockOwnership class. It requires slice
17373. Now all test are green
2016-01-10 4:55 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com>:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Henrik Johansen
> <henrik.s.johan...@veloxit.no> wrote:
> > Here's an alternative implementation, which, instead of checking for the
> new
> > method name, hooks into the existing unwind machinery to execute the
> > waitIfCurtailed: argument.
> > Which removes the special case from Process >> #terminate, but at the
> added
> > cost that in-progress unwinds are executed as if the (suspended)
> terminating
> > thread they started executing on, is still the active process. (Which,
> > arguably, should be done anyways)
>
> It feels a bit fragile playing peeking into "Processor activeProcess
> suspendingList". Also it doesn't work :) It is not sufficient to
> test with only two processes. You need three, since it is the third
> process that wakes up incorrectly.
>
> lock := Semaphore forMutualExclusion.
> waitInFirstCritical := Semaphore new.
> Transcript clear; show: 'excessSignals=' ,
> (lock instVarNamed: 'excessSignals') printString.
> testBlock := [ :n |
> Transcript crShow: n printString , ' start'.
> lock critical2: [
> (n=1) ifTrue: [ waitInFirstCritical wait ].
> Transcript crShow: n printString, ' done'.
> ]].
> proc1 := (testBlock newProcessWith: {1}) priority: 50.
> proc2 := (testBlock newProcessWith: {2}) priority: 50.
> proc3 := (testBlock newProcessWith: {3}) priority: 50.
> proc1 resume.
> proc2 resume.
> proc3 resume.
> "proc2 terminate."
> waitInFirstCritical signal.
> Transcript cr; show: 'excessSignals=' ,
> (lock instVarNamed: 'excessSignals') printString.
>
>
> "proc2 terminate" commented produces the expected result...
> excessSignals=1
> 1 start
> 2 start
> 3 start
> 1 done
> 2 done
> 3 done
> excessSignals=1
>
> "proc2 terminate" uncommented produces incorrect ordering...
> excessSignals=1
> 1 start
> 2 start
> 3 start
> 3 done "<--should occur after 1"
> 1 done
> excessSignals=2 "<--should be 1"
>
>
> Now using "lock := CriticalSection new" provided by Eliot (and
> removing instVarNamed: 'excessSignals' access from the test script)
> produces correct result...
> 1 start
> 2 start
> 3 start
> 1 done
> 3 done
>
> cheers -ben
>
>
