Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    text
    copied!<p>If every thread in the app is waiting on every other, and none are set to time out, you're rather screwed. You might be able to run the app in a debugger or something, but locks are generally acquired for a reason -- and manually forcing a mutex to be owned by a thread that didn't legitimately acquire it can cause some big problems (the thread that previously owned it is still going to try and release it, the results of which can be unpredictable if the mutex is unexpectedly yanked away. Could cause an unexpected exception, could cause the mutex to be unlocked while still in use.) Anyway it defeats the whole purpose of mutexes, so you're just covering up a much bigger problem.</p> <p>There are two common solutions:</p> <ul> <li><p>Instead of having threads wait forever, set a timeout. This is slightly harder to do in languages like Java that embed mutexes into the language via <code>synchronized</code> or <code>lock</code> blocks, but it's almost always possible. If you time out waiting on the lock, release all the locks/mutexes you had and try later.</p></li> <li><p>Better, but potentially much more complex, is to figure out why everything's fighting for the resource and remove that contention. If you must lock, lock consistently. But if there's 10 threads blocking on a single mutex, that could be a clue either that your operations are badly chunked (ie: that your threads are doing too much or too little at once before trying to acquire a lock), or that there's unnecessary locking going on. Don't lock unless you have to. Some synchronization could be obviated by using collections and algorithms specifically designed to be "lock-free" while still offering thread-safety.</p></li> </ul>
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload