this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
39 points (97.6% liked)
Rust
5989 readers
56 users here now
Welcome to the Rust community! This is a place to discuss about the Rust programming language.
Wormhole
Credits
- The icon is a modified version of the official rust logo (changing the colors to a gradient and black background)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Every situation is different, but I've solved similar problems in the past with a work queue. So things like writes to a database are queued in a central worker task that has more knowledge about lock orders and can do bulk operations to reduce the time locks are needed, resulting in greater throughput at the risk of data loss if there's a crash. We did this mostly for write performance on an embedded product (we used SD cards with bursty writes).
So applying this to the more general problem of mutexed, I wonder if having a single thread manage locks would work. I'm thinking that single thread would store all locks as a bit field, and threads would interact with it like this:
Lock(locks_needed)
Lock
creates a future that unlocks when all of the requested resources are available, with two timeouts: wait and errorThis has quite a bit more overhead (perhaps it could be largely eliminated in the happy path case with atomic operations), but it should resolve the livelock issue since it degrades to a priority queue. It could work even better in an async context since you wouldn't need a separate async loop (have an AsyncLock entry point as well).