Deadlock puzzle : Victim doesn't own any resource, used to kill to resolve deadlock
By : user3094083
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
may help you . In the context of locking, tables and their related indexes are separate entities. At times, dead locking happens between a table and its index, rather than between two separate tables. The problem is most likely when a lock is aquired on an index and then another lock is aquired on the related table (i.e. bar) to do the data lookup. During the insert, this will happen in the opposite order. First, the table (i.e. bar) is locked and updated, then indexes are locked. code :
select foo
from bar
where @someId = 0 OR SomeId = @someId
|
MySQL Deadlock - accessing different primary key values also creating deadlock
By : nicotinez
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
this will help The answer to my question is given here (on dba.stackexchange) by @jynus. Now I am using below update query. code :
UPDATE M_SAMP M
JOIN MM_RVW_SAMP MM
ON M.M_ID = MM. M_ID
SET M.FLAG = 1
WHERE MM.TARGET_M_ID = 19;
|
Strange deadlock PostgreSQL deadlock issue with SELECT FOR UPDATE
By : Aetis
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
should help you out The test case plays out like this: Thread-1 runs the SELECT and acquires the record lock. Thread-2 runs the SELECT and enters the lock's wait queue. Thread-1 runs the UPDATE / COMMIT and releases the lock. Thread-2 acquires the lock. Detecting that the record has changed since its SELECT, it rechecks the data against its WHERE condition. The check fails, and the row is filtered out of the result set, but the lock is still held.
|
QThreadPool reserveThread example
By : AdminSB
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
Hope this helps These methods are used to interoperate the thread pool with threads that you manually manage. The thread pool keeps a count of active threads and aims for it not to exceed the maximum number of threads that make sense on given hardware. The reserveThread and releaseThread change the number of active threads that the pool is aware of. It doesn't directly add nor remove any threads from the pool. It's not an error that these methods don't return a QThread. code :
QThreadPool pool;
assert(pool.maxThreadCount() == 4);
assert(pool.activeThreadCount() == 0);
MyWorker worker;
QThread thread;
worker.moveToThread(&thread);
thread.start();
pool.reserveThread();
assert(pool.activeThreadCount() == 1);
QAtomicInt act = 0;
QtConcurrent.run(&pool, [&]{ act.ref(); QThread::sleep(60); act.deref(); });
QtConcurrent.run(&pool, [&]{ act.ref(); QThread::sleep(60); act.deref(); });
QtConcurrent.run(&pool, [&]{ act.ref(); QThread::sleep(60); act.deref(); });
QtConcurrent.run(&pool, [&]{ act.ref(); QThread::sleep(60); act.deref(); });
QThread::sleep(1);
assert(pool.activeThreadCount() == 4);
assert(act.load() == 3);
thread.quit();
thread.wait();
pool.releaseThread();
QThread::sleep(1);
assert(pool.activeThreadCount() == 4);
assert(act.load() == 4);
QThread::sleep(60);
assert(pool.activeThreadCount() == 0);
assert(act.load() == 0);
|
QtConcurrent::blockingMap vs QtConcurrent::map and waitForFinished
By : user2240524
Date : March 29 2020, 07:55 AM
it should still fix some issue blockingMap provides guarantee that nothing else is going to be executed in the main thread (where application 'lives'). Thus, it might use the main thread along with the pooled, while QtConcurrent::map can't execute lambda in the main thread. That's what causes different results. Actually, x is the number of times lambda is executed in the main thread. Here's why: Qt::AutoConnection calls signals immediately when receiver lives in the same thread that have emitted the signal (in my case, in the main thread), so slot_counter is updated. When receiver lives in another thread, calling slot is queued and will be processed when startBlockingMap or startMapWithWaiting are finished. To process them immediately, one might call qApp->processEvents() as tungit suggests.
|