From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-04 06:50:59
From: "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov_at_[hidden]>
> Well, again, MP w.r.t. NO-scheduling-rules-defined-whatsoever [in POSIX]
> *and* PROPER memory sync./visibility/coherency protocol aside, consider:
> < from my e-mail archive, censored >
Okay, I give up. It's broken. Twice.
But the other side of the coin is that the 'proper' methods take more memory
and cost performance, the spinlock 'hacks' do work (most of the time ;-) )
and a generic pthread_mutex/CRITICAL_SECTION version inevitably leads to
feedback that it's grossly inefficient. Which sometimes it is. In some
scenarios a CRITICAL_SECTION is orders of magnitude slower (I've misplaced
the napkin with the exact results of my scientific experiments, but it was a
What should we do? Until Boost.Threads saves us all, that is.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk