Robert Shearman wrote:
David D. Hagood wrote:
Unless the installer is using TryEnterCriticalSection, I would expect
CPU utilisation to be 0% when deadlocking.
Yes, *once the deadlock occurs* the CPU drops to 0%. The issue (I think)
is more along the lines of this:
On fast CPU:
thread 1 locks resource A, does something, locks B, unlocks B, unlocks A.
Thread 2 locks B, does something, locks A, does something, unlocks C, A.
On slow machine:
Thread 1 locks resource A, does something.
Context switch.
Thread 2 locks B, does something.
Context switch
Thread 1 tries to lock B and blocks.
Context switch.
Thread 2 tries to lock A and blocks.
Deadlock.
In other words, on the fast CPU the deadlock does not happen because
thread 1 gets everything done before thread 2 starts. On the slow
machine, thread 2 starts while thread 1 is still doing stuff.
