From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-10 06:59:55
At 10:08 PM 9/9/2001, williamkempf_at_[hidden] wrote:
>--- In boost_at_y..., flameframe_at_h... wrote:
>> --- In boost_at_y..., williamkempf_at_h... wrote:
>> > > I'll be interested in your research. MS people that know the
>> > details claim
>> > > that a critical section is incredibly optimized and should beat
>> > mutex in
>> > > any reasonable scenario.
>> > It wasn't my research. It was research that Alexander Terekhov
>> > (spelled from memory, sorry if I buthered it) found on the net.
>> You could look also to detailed comparision - "Thread Performance,
>> Critical Sections, and Mutexes" by Johnson M. Hart on
>> BTW. I am agree that mutex is more _universal_ solution from a
>> performance point of view. But to be fair - CS are faster in simple
>> design. I believe that possibility to support them should be at
>> taken in account.
>This was the article that someone pointed me to. The conclusion was
>that CS are only faster if:
>* There are less than 8 threads total in the process.
>* You weren't running in the background.
>* You weren't on an dual processor machine.
Note that if Intel follows through on their hyper-thread announcement, all
performance oriented Intel processors will in effect be dual processor
machines in two or three years.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk