From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jake.donham@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1ACBC57
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:55:10 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AowCAHp3xEvRVdQ0kGdsb2JhbACPZotaCBUBAQEBCQkMBxEDH65xhiyIewEBAwWCVoIyBIMniUKBag
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,199,1270418400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="60655080"
Received: from mail-vw0-f52.google.com ([209.85.212.52])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2010 22:55:09 +0200
Received: by vws6 with SMTP id 6so113675vws.39
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to
         :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:received:message-id
         :subject:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=nS6AwuoNbiRGohTGWo+15x6+nrkykn2JVlUFl+xlpmE=;
        b=fBxLo1XbaRXASrw8Yx7SFLwSA6U9KKvmXphwgC/MlVU2a1+5wKWynojgRJ5qE6ltKN
         Xsex7D/RgYUtFrJIPJeSD6oMOtDRQcUv9Dg0CGHFYh2cQsAV+7fe6/V0NduZeYn280ip
         h8tfvmF+F3d/qFPxjLgjP/zlQ9aZgMP2bNsiM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
        b=o04OtGEitLHXjMAfGW3YqGQuW2G2l1jws57rgcbbcxEn7nmG1IwtMPDrenDjs4EG76
         0PKfYjCWfv/tVQ/jDblnpSAZwow1dffYLr6WZJEIH8zBTdzxNTejXgqfrp7bC4H9+zHg
         qXIWAMqI5UuatYttoz858n47Dcnld1PL6Nl0Q=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jake.donham@gmail.com
Received: by 10.220.46.138 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <n2j6d110d191004131333xa28313a3sb4d03b191099c8fd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <n2j6d110d191004131333xa28313a3sb4d03b191099c8fd@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jake Donham <jake@donham.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:54:48 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 81f22da38d2be7bd
Received: by 10.220.107.148 with SMTP id b20mr3300545vcp.210.1271192108375; 
	Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <p2lc7e4e9f1004131354pb9ccf63ew7992164d86bea19b@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Threads Scheduling
To: gmalecha@cs.harvard.edu
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam: no; 0.00; threads:01 threads:01 wrote:01 terminate:01 caml-list:01 eecs:03 seems:03 seems:03 mutex:03 mutex:03 parallel:05 tue:06 thread:06 apr:06 function:08 

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Gregory Malecha
<gmalecha@eecs.harvard.edu> wrote:
> It seems like it should work, but it doesn't work if the function f doesn't
> terminate. It seems to be running everything serially. I know that threads
> aren't actually parallel, but I thought they were preemptive in which case
> it seems like this should work. Does anyone know what I did wrong here?

You have a deadlock---the main thread has the mutex locked and won't
unlock it until the condition is signaled; neither of the other
threads will signal the condition until the mutex is unlocked. There
is no reason to lock/unlock the mutex in the two child threads.

Jake "crossing fingers"