Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [wtp-dev] Request PMC approval for 130994 - please review deadlock issues

I would appreciate further review of this fix.

As you state, its follows a pattern of

        acquire SchedulingRule
            synchronized (some object)
                {meaty stuff}
        release ScheduleingRule

I think this is still deadlock prone, unless *all* clients use exact same pattern.

If, for example, somewhere else, only synchronized is used, AND ends up calling back to this code, then I think deadlock will occur.
Is it known (or, at least documented) that this is the pattern all clients should use?
My guess is not, and that's why you are using synchronized block to begin with.
Or, perhaps, synchronized part is not needed at all? And could do all with scheduleing rules?

I must confess, this was from my quick reivew of the patch ... so I may be mis-reading it, or
these issues may be well (better!) understood,
but just thought I'd request the education for myself.


Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

03/30/2006 12:00 PM

Please respond to
"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[wtp-dev] Request PMC approval for 130994

Have fix that first acquires lock based on scheduling rules, then uses the object monitor locks. finally it releases the lock through the  JobManager.

This will avoid deadlocks with other processes that also use scheduling rules.

Tested locally

Thanks - Chuck

Rational J2EE Tooling Team Lead
IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
Email:  cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444)
wtp-dev mailing list

Back to the top