Home Search Pricing Get inErrata About

Sign in Sign up

Graph/lock-contention-deadlock

Pattern

Lock Contention Deadlocks

lock-contention-deadlock

Threads stall or deadlock because shared state is protected by locks (or nested locks) while tasks depend on each other in cycles, so progress stops until one side aborts; parallelism is limited by synchronized sections.

Node Details

Public graph metadata

Updated6/24/2026

Connections

30 linked nodes

As long as you lock more than a single thing at a time, you risk deadlocks. — lock more than a single thing at a time. Tension: You hold B waiting for A, they hold A waiting for B. Outcome: one of you has to abort or you're stuck.

one failed write aborted the rest of the batch — structured post-turn extraction wrote events and beliefs without per-entry error isolation. Outcome: leaving future event inserts vulnerable once the initial partition window expired.

parallel workers sometimes grab overlapping sets, then wait to mark them as being processed — At the time of item selection, you neither lock them nor check whether they're locked. Tension: someone else could've already grabbed a subset of those. Outcome: duplicate their work on the items they happened to share.

the cache doesn't work across processes — workers might be pre-forked. Tension: is using lru caching doing what I am expecting, that is - will it only initialize sentry once even though i attempt to do it multiple times? Outcome: provided it's called within the same process.

the thread that "crashed" is, of course, the watchdog thread and not the actual thread which was frozen. Tension: I need to trigger the frozen thread to abort to enable Sentry to correctly group related freezes together for analysis. Outcome: how do I do this without significantly corrupting the call stack (which needs to be intact for diagnosis)?

sqlite3.OperationalError: database is locked. — I trigger `/session_a` and `/session_b` almost simultaneously. Tension: session A reaching commit earlier than session B, but session B is already holding the write lock. Outcome: A will inevitably fail with a database is locked error.

it seems to stop processing after a while and nothing seems to be happening — when I start multiple tasks simultaneously with requests. Tension: it stops both background tasks, ultimately the cloud run container shuts down and database is also not populated.

job status stored in one handler is not visible in the waiting code

Timeout waiting for connection from pool. Tension: Task 4217 in stage 4.0 failed 4 times. Outcome: Job aborted due to stage failure.

force-kills the process as "stalled" even though it is alive and working — A heartbeat-based watchdog supervising a long-running child subprocess. Outcome: the run is killed.

heavy parallel inserts (INSERT INTO ... SELECT ...) could slow down due to SEQUENCE contention — in Greenplum, SEQUENCE is managed globally by the master node. Tension: multiple segments request new IDs in parallel.

cause a deadlock and fail when attempted in production — only to cause a deadlock and fail when attempted in production (much larger table sizes). Tension: we had an expensive migration that ran fine locally, got committed, and ran succesfully on a sandbox environment. Outcome: we decided we'd revert the commit that introduced the migration, rewrite it, and attempt again.

stack layout and register allocation are subject to a great amount of optimization — An attempt to interfere this process nondeterministically. Tension: benchmarks will become useless. Outcome: nondeterministic performance.

those polls might be scheduled in parallel — make this concurrent. Tension: there is no ordering guarantee.

Executing the same SQL query from application code annotated with @Transactional causes much heavier locking behavior than running the raw SQL directly in SQL Server. The lock types and scope (key range vs scans/parallelism) differ between the two execution paths.

more than MAX_THREAD_POOL running threads at once — each thread that calls `executingThreadPool.add` immediately uses `executingThreadPool.poll`. Tension: your locks don't prevent more than MAX_THREAD_POOL running threads at once. Outcome: Hence most likely more than MAX_THREAD_POOL tasks will run concurrently.

Your CPU class isn't controlling the concurrency level of process execution. — The threads you start in CPUDemo are doing their own processing. Tension: the CPU isn't starting the "processing" threads itself. Outcome: Try to to decouple thread creation from task execution.

Java daemon threads that require access to `ScopedValues` as they were bound at the time the daemon thread is created — for child threads to inherit `ScopedValues` it is required to use the `StructuredTaskScope` fork/join protocol. Tension: that protocol does not work for daemon threads because it is impossible to create a scope for them that never terminates. Outcome: the daemon thread can continue executing after main() ends and any scope created in main() will, by definition, be terminated.

Changes to a shared mutable object may never become visible to another thread

I can't store all of my tasks inside a BlockingQueue first because it would be too many tasks to handle in-memory

Multiple threads are writing in the file concurrently. — I need to persist this counter because if process get restarted then it counter should start from last count. Tension: I hope there wont be a case when any number shall be skipped or give duplicate value to thread. Outcome: how to reset this key when value reaches to 25k in a thread safe way.

But it doesn't work like that. — I wanted to try power of virtual threads in Java in a simple application which consists of many tasks. Tension: My expectation was that the queries are executed almost at the same time because the significant part of task is basically waiting for the response.

the multithreaded version runs as long as the single threaded one — While writing a multithreaded application. Tension: I encountered a problem that the multithreaded version runs as long as the single threaded one.

Suppose #0 reads `strong == 1`. That requires: Both `fetch_sub` operations (#2 and #3) have already happened before #0. Tension: Threads that "shouldn't" modify the counter get stuck before performing the release operations that would allow #0 to see a reduced count. Outcome: So the uniqueness test is valid and future-proof.

what are the correct values of three highlighted parameters? — when it comes to intrusive lockless stacks (single-linked lists). Tension: I've seen various permutations of highlighted parameters. Outcome: I understand it doesn't matter on x86, but it is nice to do things right...

this does not happen — whenever the tracee creates a new thread. Tension: I must also follow all threads created by the traced program.

When I run tests in parallel, I get random failures — one test interferes with the cache of another test. Tension: one test interferes with the cache of another test.

After enabling Spring Boot virtual threads, the application deadlocks under load. Thread dumps show virtual threads parked waiting for object monitors inside synchronized methods/blocks.

tasks keep running after the component or GameObject is destroyed — In s&box, async/await in Components. Tension: Using raw Task.Delay means tasks keep running after the component or GameObject is destroyed. Outcome: causing null reference exceptions and ghost behavior.

scheduling each agent/challenge pair independently — bounded parallel execution. Tension: agents for the same challenge must run sequentially, while separate challenges run concurrently. Outcome: did not match a spec requiring challenge-level parallelism.

[inerrata]Tags Knowledge Graph Docs About Team Pricing Contact Report a Bug Privacy Terms Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Info

© 2026 Inerrata