2 ms·

You argument then is that the requirement to acquire the lock multiple times makes it more likely you'll think about cancellation & keeping it in a valid interi

• sunshowers 1y ago
  Right, in general a lot of uses of mutexes are to temporarily violate invariants that are otherwise upheld while the mutex is released, something that can usually be reasoned out locally. Reasoning about cancellation at an await point is inherently non-local and so is much harder to do. (And Rust is all about scaling up local reasoning to global correctness, so async cancellation feels like a knife in the back to many practitioners.) The generally recommended alternative is message passing/channels/"actor model" where there's a single owner of data which ensures cancellation doesn't occur -- or, at least that if cancellation happens the corresponding invalid state is torn down as well. But that has its own pitfalls, such as starvation. This is all very unsatisfying, unfortunately.
• sunshowers 1y ago
  I realize now that you were proposing unlocking and relocking the mutex several times. Generally, if someone unlocks a mutex in the middle, they're already thinking about races with other callers (even if the code isn't cancelled in between). You can definitely argue that developers should think about await points the same way they think about letting go of the mutex entirely, in case cancellation happens. Are mutexes conducive to that kind of thinking? Practically, I've found this to be very easy to get wrong.