How far we can tolerate in deadlocks?

I learnt this during writing my previous computational paper. It is interesting how we can relate deadlock in real life.

What is deadlock, anyway? In computing, deadlock fancy to occur in systems that implement locking for concurrency control during transactions. When it stuck with two or more transactions, it could not be prolonged to process. So these systems need some kind of mechanism to detect this and resolve the problem when it occurs because of blocked from progressing.

That one is digital.

Let’s think this situation as likeliness example of deadlock; Two small boys stop at vending machine and both would like to get a can of fizzy drink. Unfortunately, both of them did not want to give into each other for the first get a chance to coin in for a can of soda. On the other hand, the machine only can process a job in a period of time, it cannot entertain both of them in a same time. “It’s mine, it’s mine. I am the one who reach here first!”, the conversation goes around similar like that. The boys having frictions, persistent and tenacious to each other and both of them do think the opposer are the one who suppose to not give up. Thus, that situation may take forever to resolved. Likewise, that situation called a deadlock.

A classical example.

Taking this a bitter real, say we commoner; What about Kane is need a resource from Abel, however Abel need a buffer, or another resource from Kane. Both are critical to do before they move forward. That’s a circular-chain-unsolve deadlocked. No way any transaction can go because it is stuck in whole sense.

Right. But again, how far we can tolerate deadlock?

We, the sensible human beings understand the concept of dualism : good-bad, right-wrong, love-hate etc. We too, should understand that there is always another way to achieve something, even though not always the time permits such independence.

A close friend of mine once told me about the concept of give-and-take. I was a kid back then, and was trained by camp to choose to embraced with win-win situation. However, not always allow us, everyone to win. It was a factual piece of advice because not always people reach an agreement with each other in win and win situation. Give-and-take taught to be respectful and giving up sometimes is fine. It concedes us to have a harmonious ecosystem of social relationship by cease something that was wanted and agreeing to some of the things wanted by the other person.

Perhaps we can look at this like mutual exclusivity or mutual inclusivity? Therefore both people agree to be commit to each other and to be in a committed process or relationship. Or agree to disagree.

So, talk. Discuss and decide.

While I am not always get the idea to be smartest guy in the room, personally I think being modest and humble is decent. If you would like to live in harmony society, why not be the first to portray. Deeds count, right?

At the end of the day : Life is always a choice. Certainly, overcomplication is a never ending game.

But that raises another question; how far is a human limit?