Email	Print Reprint
	add to:
	Del.icio.us Digg Google Furl	Slashdot Y! MyWeb Blink
	TABLE OF CONTENTS Three Pillars The Problem: Anatomy of a Deadlock A Solution: Lock Hierarchies and Layering Frameworks and Lock Hierarchies A Word About Composability

Frameworks and Lock Hierarchies

It is a curious thing that major frameworks that supply mutexes and locks do nothing to offer any direct support for lock hierarchies. Everyone is taught that lock hierarchies are a best practice, but then are generally told to go roll their own.

The frameworks vendors will undoubtedly fix this little embarrassment in the future, but for now, here's a useful recipe to follow as you do roll your own level-aware mutex wrapper. You can adapt this simple sketch to your project's specific needs (for example, to suit details such as whether your lock operation is a method or a separate class):

• Write a wrapper around each of your favorite language- or platform-specific mutex types, and let the wrapper's constructor(s) take a level number parameter that it saves in a myLevel member. Use these wrappers everywhere. (Where practical, save time by making the wrapper generic—as a C++ template, or a Java or .NET generic—so that it can be instantiated to wrap arbitrary mutex types that have similar lock/unlock features. You might only have to write it once.)
• Give the wrapper class a thread-local static variable called currentLevel, initialized to a value higher than any valid lock level.
• In the wrapper's lock method (or similar), assert that currentLevel is greater than myLevel, the level of the mutex that you're about to try to acquire. Remember, if the previous value of currentLevel is using another member variable, then set currentLevel = myLevel; and acquire the lock.
• In the wrapper's unlock method (or similar), restore the previous value of currentLevel.
• As needed, also wrap other necessary methods you need to be able to use, such as try_lock. Any of these methods that might try to acquire the lock should do the same things as lock does.
• Finally, write a "lock-multiple" method lock( m1, m2, ... ) that takes a variable number of lockable objects, asserts that they are all at the same level, and locks them in their address order (or their GUID order, or some other globally consistent order).

The reason for using assertions in the lock methods is so that, in a debug build, we force any errors to be exposed the first time we execute the code path that violates the lock hierarchy rules. That way, we can expect to find violations at test time and have high confidence that the program is deadlock-free based on code path coverage. Enabling such deterministic test-time failures is a great improvement over the way concurrency errors usually manifest, namely as nondeterministic runtime failures that can't be thoroughly tested using code path coverage alone. But often our test-time code path coverage isn't complete, either because it's impossible to cover all possible code path combinations or because we might forget a few cases; so prefer to also perform the tests in release builds, recording violations in a log or diagnostic dump that you can review later if a problem does occur.

Previous Page | 1 Three Pillars | 2 The Problem: Anatomy of a Deadlock | 3 A Solution: Lock Hierarchies and Layering | 4 Frameworks and Lock Hierarchies | 5 A Word About Composability Next Page

RELATED ARTICLES Logging In C++ : Part 2 recls 100% .NET QuickThread: A New C++ Multicore Library C Snippet #8 CUDA, Supercomputing for the Masses: Part 14		TOP 5 ARTICLES No Top Articles.