Re: [boost] win32 mutex and condition variable algorithms

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-20 05:05:10

Anthony Williams wrote:
[...]
> He claims that the second A: lock takes the slow path, when it could have
> taken the fast path because the lock is free. I disagree. The lock is NOT
> free, since B is waiting on it. If A can take the fast path here, that's
> opening the door for B to be starved. 

That's not a problem as long what we need is efficient low level 
exclusive lock. If starvation is a problem, one can solve it with 
custom scheduling monitor on top of "grab if you can" low level 
exclusive lock without handoff. Low level, all pigs are equal. ;-)

regards,
alexander.