On Fri, 9 Dec 2011, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

Ok, but I have never failed to be impressed by how much trouble even green threads can �cause. � Meaning no disrespect, if I had a repeatable failure scenario, I would make the switch to a mutex just in case. �If for no other reason, Semaphore>>critical: makes assumptions about what is and is not interruptible. �I don't have to so much as play dumb here (it comes naturally at the vm level), but I can't help wondering about the validity of the assumptions, the correctness of the code, and all the more so given our move to Cog.

Is there a reason *not* to use Mutex in such situations? �We have multiple users telling us there is a problem.

Mutex is broken, so you better not use it. :)

Levente

________________________________________
From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Henrik Sperre Johansen [henrik.s.johansen@veloxit.no]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 1:33 PM
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] How to resurrect an unrepsonsive image?

On 09.12.2011 16:59, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

I would be very curious about what happens if you replace the socket-related mutual exclusion semaphores with mutexes.

For the semaphore in question here, there is no recursion going on in
any of the critical sections.
So the answer to that would be absolutely nothing.

Cheers,
Henry