Re: [boost] [thread] best practice to lock multiple mutexes

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-08 17:29:06

On Feb 8, 2008, at 5:14 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:

> Howard Hinnant:
>
>> Here are results (dating around 3 years ago):
>>
>> In order:  63 seconds.
>> try/back off/without yield:  47 seconds.
>> try/back off/with yield:  34 seconds.
>
> With Alexander Terekhov's "swap-based mutex", I'm not seeing a  
> significant
> difference between the versions with and without yield. The penalty  
> likely
> comes from spin-waits in lock() (which is why they're evil).

Hey, would you mind running against lock-in-order?  I'd love to  
confirm what I've been preachin'. ;-)  Or if you see lock-in-order as  
better, then better for me to hear it sooner rather than later...

Thanks,
Howard