Re: [Chicken-users] Thread safe hash tables?

[Thomas Chust]

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, KonLovett wrote:

> On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:37 AM, Thomas Chust wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > just a small question: Are CHICKEN's hash tables threadsafe by design or do 
> > I have to surround all hash table accesses in multithreaded applications by 
> > a mutex-lock! / mutex-unlock! pair?
>
> FWIW my reading of the source is 1) No & 2) Yes. You could surround access w/ 
> disable/enable interrupts, since that would inhibit a context switch by the 
> schedular during the access. But I think creating a "thread-safe" wrapper 
> around your shared data-structure, as you suggest, is the best.
> [...]

Hello,

so you think I can mess up the internal data structure of a hash table if 
I access it concurrently from two threads? That's nasty. I'll have to put 
a bazillion of those
  (dynamic-wind
      (lambda () (mutex-lock! some-hash-mtx))
      (lambda () (do-something-to (mutex-specifix some-hash-mtx)))
      (lambda () (mutex-unlock! some-hash-mtx)))
blocks into my code. But thank you for telling me, because after some 
tests I thought the hash tables *were* thread safe.

cu,
Thomas