On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 01:47, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I haven't been following very closely. Is the reason why we are not using > critical sections that TryEnterCriticalSection isn't available anywhere? > If so, then we can probably fix that with some assembly programming.
Thats a factor, yes. > Critical sections are *so* much faster than mutexes or semaphores that > it makes sense to use them if possible. > > Or, maybe we're talking about something else entirely... Well there are two things. Thomas's work gives use recursive and error checking mutexes, which aren't currently supported. He also points out that semaphores leverage critical sections on NT, so should be ~ in speed. >From my POV, we haven't benchmarked his work enough to really tell, BUT - critical sections don't scale well anyway, certainly not to MP environments (there is doco on this somewhere). We could look at having both classes implemented and doing some testing. Hmm. In fact, given that we object based, we probably should subclass pthread_mutex anyway for clarity with the different forms of mutexs. Rob
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
