Re: [pcp] libpcp multithreading - next steps

[Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 27/07/16 05:28, Dave Brolley wrote:
> On 07/25/2016 04:32 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > Take for example, as reported back three months ago at [1]: the 4751
> > test case, as committed, was failing in that the last run timed out
> > and failed to produce output.
> >
> > [1]  http://oss.sgi.com/archives/pcp/2016-04/msg00202.html
> ...
> So let's start with the change referenced by [1] above. I'll have a look
> at it.
> ...
This commit contains the contentious (in my mind) 
__pmHandleToPtr_unlocked() change ... reviewing this pre-empts the 
discussion about how to fix the context create/destroy race that I 
wanted us to resolve as a first step of restating this effort.
I also am unconvinced that any lock inversion existed in the original 
design and implementation and would like to understand that (if it 
exists) before we embark on a development path that relies on helgrind 
to find lock inversions rather than design to avoid lock inversions.