Re: Using posix calls in rotor code

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Barry Bond wrote:

> You shouldn't have problems if you add additional thread synchronization
> code.  The suspend/resume code is reasonably robust - it suspends each
> thread, and if the thread is not executing managed code, it immediately
> resumes it and lets the thread run until it re-enters managed code.
okay.

> As
> long as you don't introduce new locks that need to be acquired by the
> actual suspend/resume code in the EE, you shouldn't see deadlocks.
>

by new locks do you mean locking the thread store?

> Be very careful adding new locks into the PAL - if you do, you'll need
> to update the critsec_count in order to avoid PAL-internal deadlocks.

Can you please elaborate on this ?


>
> Barry
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.


Regards
archana


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Rotor Shared Source CLI implementation
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Archana
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 4:45 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [DOTNET-ROTOR] Using posix calls in rotor code
>
> Hi,
>  Can we use Posix calls for thread synchronization in rotor code?
> because
> almost all calls used are the ones that are defined in /pal/unix
> directory. and crucial functions such as suspendEE, restartEE assume
> that
> all the threads are objects of 'class Thread'.
>  to be more specific, if we introduce pthread mutexes/semaphores in the
> code, what precautions should one take to ensure that the gc thread is
> successful in suspending all the threads?
>
> Thanks & regards
> archana
>